Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
STATION
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
CSPAN
Jan 16, 2013 9:00am EST
the debt ceiling, which is that not everybody understand what the debt ceiling is about. the debt ceiling, raising the debt ceiling, which congress has to do periodically, gives the government the ability to pay existing bills. it doesn't create new deficits. it doesn't create new spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family, which is trying to improve its credit rating sank i know how we can save money, we won't pay off credit card bills. not the most effective way to improve your credit rating. it was the very slow solution to the debt ceiling in august 2011 i got the u.s. downgraded last time. so it's very, very important that all these issues are important but it's very, very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where our government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in the deal. as you mention it certainly went part way but it leaves another the issues still on the table, and additional negotiations and are loo
CSPAN
Jan 15, 2013 11:00pm EST
policies. second, you have the debt ceiling. it is a marketing tool the country hostage. we know there's going to be a fighter for the debt ceiling. in the past that feeling with a speed bump that reminded folks who are borrowing too much and needed to make changes. it could be a useful reminder. not because of sars are people really worry about the fate of the u.s. government and its economic damage, which is what we saw last time. the third piece, the fact government spending is going to expire in the triple witching hour of these issues is if this will close and is that going to force action of the hardest pieces still remaining for the fact that they still for all intents and purposes, it's good we didn't go to the fiscal cliff, good release revenue, but we basically did what we always do, which is punted the hard choices and try to declare bipartisan victory. it wasn't there. the question as to make make these next moments were set to getting us to really take on policies. and this is part of your question that will do it the necessary savings the next 10 years, but just as
CSPAN
Jan 14, 2013 11:00pm EST
raising the debt ceiling gives the government the ability to pay its existing bills. it doesn't create new deficit spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family that's trying to improve its credit rating. families that say, i know how we can save money, we won't pay her credit card bills. it was the sole solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 in the u.s. downgraded last time. so all these issues are important and it's very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in a deal, it certainly went part way, but leaves a number of issues still on the table. would you care to raise that as an additional fiscal cliff that is facing us? would you think that it's not as concerning as it was when you raise that term initially? >> as i said the fiscal cliff, if it is allowed to take place, it probably would have traded a recession this year. a good bit of that has been addressed. nevertheless, we still have fairly restrictive fiscal policies now. it is estimated that federal fiscal policy will we have quite a bit to do to address the their long-term sustainability issues. there's a lot more work to do. let me be very clear about that. it's going to be a long haul and it's not going to happen overnigh3 it's going to be a long haul and it's not going to happen overnight. we because the government budget represents the values and priorities of the public and the decisions being made about what to spend and tax and someone, they are very difficult and contentious decisions that take time to address. >> , those issues, of course, are not the specific purview and why don't we shift gears and talk more explicitly about some of the things that the fed is doing and things that the fed might do. perhaps a way to introduce that is to say that that is in keeping interest rates close to zero, since it has dug pretty deep into an unconventional policy. asset purchases are meant to help in the short term. can you explain that? >> well, monetary policy involved the overnight interest rate up and down and hoping that the rest of the interest rates would move in sympathy. then we get a situation in 2008 where we had dropped the short-term rate down about as far as it could go come almost entirely to zero. so the question is what work did the fed do. there are many people a decade ago event a lot of articles about how the fed would be out of ammunition if they got down to zero. a lot of work by academics and others, researchers of the central bank suggested that there was more that could be done once the short-term rate back down to zero. and what you can try to do is bring the longer-term rates down. the idea being that you're going to keep rates low in a long-term and that will have the effect of pushing down longer-term interest rates. the idea is that by buying large quantities of treasury securities were mortgage-backed securities that we can effects are kind of early we have succeeded in bringing long-term rates down pretty significantly it creates jobs, and real estate activity is affected and so on. broadly speaking, we have found this to be an effective tool. and we will continue to assess how effective because it's possible that as you move through time and the situation changes, the impact of these tools can vary. i think what we have decisively shown is that the short-term interest rate getting down to zero, what economists call the zero bound problem, and does not mean there is a set of ammunition. there are things we can do, things that we have done. other central banks have done similar things and have also had some success in creating more monetary policy support for the economy. >> you had mentioned that there has been evidence that the longer-term interest rates have come down to the initial round. concern is that the unemployment rate remains very high and activity would try to bring that down and one would hope to see additional movements from the most recent round. are you suggesting that one would need to be patient? needs a little bit more about how you would assess how this is having the kind of effect that you would anticipate? >> well, we will be doing that on a regular basis. we will be looking at the impact on financial markets and we will see some effect there. we will look to see whether or not the labor market situation. we first started talking about a .1% on employment, there has been some movement. there was nearly 40% of the unemployed having been out of work for six months or more. that is a situation where there are too many people i can give you specific criteria except to say that we will be assessing the impact of our actions a financial market conditions and looking to see how those link up to developments in labor markets and in the broader economy. you have to think and ask yourself what would've happened if we hadn't taken these actions. but again, the evidence seems to be an outside not only the evidence on the u.s., but on the uk and elsewhere, that these types of policies do have an impact on the economy. >> we hope that there will be more of an impact going forward to bring the breakdown quickly. >> the pace of improvement, that's an interesting question. because the pigs of economic growth over the last few years since the beginning of the recovery has not been as strong as you normally would think would be needed to get really big improvements in the labor market. nevertheless, we are seeing declining unemployment which is fairly significant, and we hope to see an ongoing improvement there. so it's a little bit hard to judge exactly how much more improvement we will see. but certainly we want to keep things going in the right direction. in terms of additional tools, once you get the short-term interest rate down to zero, there is basically two principal coaches. either a securities purchase or communication. there are a few other things of smaller magnitude, like the interest rate that we pay on the excess reserves, for example. but i think those are the two basic approaches that we have. we can and try to improve our communication and be more effective, but there is no aware tactic that we have not yet attacked the. >> we have just had a meeting at the detroit board of directors which provides some information about the conditions more explicitly in this region. and there are conditions that vary across the country. i wonder if you could share how you factor in across different parts of the economy when making decisions that are more aggregate? >> well, first, thank you for joining the detroit branch. the 12 reserve banks around the country, each board of directors , it could be academics are community leaders, nonprofits, we wanted to get input and it's very helpful to us to have moved from leaders in different parts of the economy providing this input. i've heard from another people throughout the auto industry and health care, academics, industry, variety of various things and that is very useful. it's become much more diversified. and they still have a significant reliance on auto production. it has now come back quite a bit as the auto industry has improved. and so we are seeing some strengthening, although conditions here are still not where we would like them to be. the housing market has also come back some in michigan. but like many other industrial parts of the country, this includes bringing in high tech services, health care, education and so on. places like the university of michigan in ann arbor are a tremendous resource and people trying to develop high-tech businesses so it is an opportunity to see that america has a powerful industrial base there are some positive things to look at. one of the key positives that i already made reference to his housing. as you know, house prices in the u.s. fell about 30% for the first time, since the 2007, 2006, we are starting to see increases in production and rising house prices and how that will affect household wealth. that is one positive factor that is going to help us out and help us to have a better year in 2013 and in 2014. a few other things that are positive is that state and local governments, which have been in contractionary mode because of the loss of everything. they wanted to check on the economy that they have been for the last two years. the energy industry is looking much stronger. consumers are more optimistic than the university of michigan publishes the index of consumer sentiment, which is one of the very best guides with how consumers are feeling. as long as the fiscal policy keeps going, there will be some progress. we still have quite a ways to go before we will be dissatisfied. it is actually taken some of the pressure off of congress to try to address these fiscal challenges. the critics on both sides -- you should give the other guys a chance. >> i will get there. [laughter] >> okay. well, let me first say that as we think about the costs and risks of any policy, we should also think about what we are trying to accomplish and i have made reference already that the federal reserve has a dual mandate from congress to achieve maximum employment. price stability means low inflation we have basically taken that to mean 2% inflation and has been in the very low 2% range and appears to be on track for up to 2%. unemployment, as we have learned discussed, is still quite high. it has been coming down, but very lowly. cost of that is enormous in terms of lost resources and hardship and talents and skills being wasted. so our efforts are very important to try to create this environment is most appropriate. that is what we are doing. there are potential risks and inflation was mentioned. we have obviously used an expansionary monetary policy and we have increased the amount of reserves that banks hold with the bad. there are some people that think that that will be inflationary. personally i don't see much evidence of that. inflation, as i mentioned, has been quite low. expectations remain anchored. private sector forecasters do not seek any inflation coming up, and in particular, we have, i believe, with all the tools that we need to undo our monetary policy stimulus and to take that away for inflation becomes a problem. so i do not believe that you can inflation is going to be a result of any of us. that being said i stability -- in terms of stability, it is well maintained. the other thing worth mentioning is financial ability. this is a difficult issue. the concern has been raised by keeping interest rates very low that the federal reserve induces people to take greater risks in their financial investments, and that could lead to instability later on in life. again, a difficult question. i could probably take the rest of the hour talking about it. but what i will say is that we are first law very much engaged in monitoring the economy. the fed has increased enormously the number of resources into monitoring conditions and what's happening in different sectors of the financial market. we have also been part of the very extended effort to strengthen our financial system by increasing capital in banks and making derivatives more transparent and accompanying supervision and so on. so we are taking measures to try to prevent financial instability and identify potential risks that we would then address to regulatory supervisory methods. those are very much the two issues. but once again, this is something that we need to pay full attention to. as we have discussed in our statement and have for a while, as we evaluate these policies, we are going to be looking at the benefits, which i believe involve an economic growth to reduction of unemployment and also looking across the cost-benefit type approach here is to make sure that the actions we are taking are fully justified in cost-benefit type of framework. now, you mentioned -- i didn't talk about the congressional issue. but i think that, you know, it's not really up to the fed to try to play games and induce congress to do what it's supposed to be doing. congress needs to be addressing these fiscal issues themselves. interest rates will eventually rise in the hope that they rise because that means the economy will be strengthening. so we will be playing games with that. we are going to follow our mandate, which means do what's necessary to help the economy is strong congress should take care of their job, which is to address the fiscal issues that have talked about as a earlier. and i don't think that that will change in the interest interest rates will be different. he was to raise interest rates prematurely end cause a recession, that was just make some solutions to the problem all that much more difficult. so i don't see this is forcing congress to take action on the fiscal policy is a very sensible way to go. well, as i mentioned in my introduction, you came to your position with the real expertise, and world experts on a great depression and how policymakers should we have in the midst of the crisis. now that you have actually lived through the major global crisis, and wonder if you could tell us what surprised you most. >> the crisis. [laughter] as an academic, i worked on the great depression. as you were on the macro economy, and i've been very interested when i came to address issues related to the potential crises. but obviously, you know, this was a very large and complex crisis that was more severe than i anticipated. and i think that most people anticipated this and that way and we did learn something from history and i think there's a lot of value in studying history, particularly from our perspective of economic history because it helps you see what your predecessors did wrong and it right. two things we learned from the great depression, one of them was not let monetary policy get to type. in the '30s, the federal reserve did not try to expand monetary policy accommodation and as a result, there was about 10% a year deflation, falling prices, very damaging, but that also did not do much in the '30s to try to stabilize the banking system, which about a third of the banks in the country failed. we took action to try to stabilize the financial system. we took those actions from learning what happened in the '30s. we were still recovering from world war i, there was a lot of international and 90, there is a lot of cooperation among central banks and governments, and it was not always very good. in fact, your audience may know about this terror and the other things that happened and it's very important, if you can, it's very important to cooperate and that was something that we did quite actively in terms of banking in the financial regulation and to some extent, monetary policy. making sure, for example, we are working that the central banks have enough dollars to lend in cases of transactions and cooperation has been very helpful in the latest episode and that was another thing that we learned from the 1930s. one reason that the fed did not take more aggressive fundamental action to try to end the great depression was because they were free to do anything that was on orthodox. excusing, unorthodox. i'm not being critical because it was an incredibly different and difficult. lack of time. they maintained an orthodox approach. a person who change that in the united states was president roosevelt who did a lot of different things. something's things work, some things don't work. not all of them were, but a lot of them did. we did help to stabilize the financial system and bring our economy back where we would like to see it. >> you raise the issue of what is going on globally. and the cooperation and that certainly is a positive thing. the global languages are very important in terms of u.s. growth. if you look at the medium term, where would you see a plausible scenario to generate the demand for the growth that we hope the u.s. achieves? i think he would agree to go back to the very helpful consumption levels that were arguably unsustainable, given the challenges and risks, and slowing growth in china, i'm not so clear where that growth might come from. and i wonder what your thoughts are about back kind of concern? >> well, it is true that global growth has been somewhat slower. for a variety of different reasons. one is the european situation, which you alluded to. much of europe is in recession at this point following the difficult financial problems at the time. the slowdown in china was at least partly to try to create a more sustainable growth path and to try to shift the sources of demand from foreign buyers and exports that is a loss of potential growth from our perspective. there are a couple of challenges. in europe, progress has been made in addressing their sovereign debt and banking issues that they have. .. places like china and india, which has been the biggest anti-poverty program in history. the growth in those countries is listed in the many millions of people out of poverty, so i think that growth will proceed in those areas as well with each country, each region. dealing with different sets of issues. >> i know that our audience has many questions to pose to you. perhaps that me ask one final one before i turn over to our students to have questions from the audience. given all of the range of things that we have already discussed, is there one or to particular things that keep you up at night? [laughter] >> well, we have a dog that sleeps with us. thought i'd try to get as much sleep as possible. i think that's good. did not workout today because the airline canceled, long story. but i want to see our economy recover. i would like to see this. i would like to see the labor market, fiscal policy addressed the issues that were mentioned. obviously difficult issues out there, but i do think things are moving, you know, not as fast as we would like. in that direction i am cautiously optimistic about the next oliviers. >> thank you. [applause] well, as i mentioned, i'm sure that there are a great many questions that have already been shared with our presenters, so let me turn the floor to them. >> thank you for your comments, chairman bernanke command for your comments. i am master's student. the first question is, if treasury had a trillion dollar platinum coin, with they have made in the count? if not, why not. >> well, i'm not going to give that any oxygen. [laughter] as you probably know, the treasury and the federal reserve over the weekend, the treasury issued a statement to which the federal reserve approved stating that we did not think this was the right way to deal with this problem. i mean, there are legal issues, policy issues. i think the right way to deal with this problem, as i said earlier, is for congress to do what it is supposed to do and needs to do and authorize an increase in the debt ceiling soon compare our debts and bills . that is the right way to do it. and the i think that is what will eventually happen, but i don't think that going off in another direction would really be all that talk -- all that helpful. >> hello, chairman bernanke. i am a second year in pp at the force cool and studying for a graduate certificate in science and technology. second question from the audience, does the debt ceiling of a practical purpose? could it be eliminated without much consequence? >> does what have? >> the debt ceiling. >> it does not really have. it has symbolic value i guess, but no other country, i believe, maybe one or two other, but no other countries in the world have this particular institution . to so everyone understands what is, the congress appropriates $100, tells the government to spend $100 on whenever and then it raises $80 in revenue through its tax code. now, the arithmetic here sort of says, you have to borrow $20. shephard -- the congress has to give a third rule. if the congress is approving spending and taxing and those two things are not equal then this kind of logically, there must be something to make up the difference which is borrowing. i am not sink's deficits and debts are a good thing, but the way to address this is by having a sensible plan for spending and a sensible plan for revenue. and make decisions about how big government should be or how small it should be. but again, as i said before, this is sort of like a family thing. we're spending too much and stopped paying our credit card bill. that is not the way to get yourself in the good financial conditions. i think it would be a good thing if we did not have it. i don't think it's going to happen, and that they will be around, but i do hope that congress will allow the government to pay its bills, not raise the possibility of defaults, which would be very, very costly to our economy. and then address very seriously these fiscal issues. i'm not saying we should not do that. absolutely there are important issues and basic fundamental values involved. so let's do that, but we don't need to do it in the context of the debt ceiling. >> do you believe that this budget actually prevents future asset bubbles? if so, what tools do you have to do that? >> well, asset bubbles are very, very difficult to to anticipate, obviously. but we can do some things. first of all, we can try to strengthen our financial system, say, by increasing the amount of capital liquidity that banks hold, by improving the supervision of those banks, by making sure that every important financial institution is supervised by somebody. there were some inborn once during the crisis that essentially have no effective supervision, so you make the system stronger. if a bubble or some other financial problem emerges, the system will be better able to be more resilient, will be better able to survive the problem. now, you can try to identify bubbles, and i think there has been a lot of research on that. by thinking on that we have created a council called the financial stability oversight council which is made up of ten regulators and chaired by the secretary of the treasury. one of whose responsibilities is to monitor the financial system has the fed also does and try to identify problems that emerged. in that going to identify any problem, to be sure, but you can do your best and you can try to make sure the system is strong. when you identify problems you can use the first line of defense which is to be regulatory and supervisory authority, not only the fed, the occ and the ftse has as well. it -- having said all that, as i was saying earlier there's a lot of disagreement about what role monetary policy plays increasing as the bubbles. there are people that think it is an important source. our attitude is that we need said identify problems and address that. the federal reserve was created about 100 years ago now, 1913 was the law. not to do monetary policy, but rather, to address financial panics. and that is what we did, of course, in 2009. and it is a difficult task, but i think going forward, the fed needs to think about the financial stability and monetary economic stability as being in some sense, that to keep dollars of what the central bank tries to do we will be working harder and financial stability, using our regulatory supervisory powers trying to strengthen the financial system and if necessary adjust monetary policy as well. i don't think that is the first line of defense. >> okay. this comment comes from twitter. if the fed is struck -- targeting 82% inflation rate the fomc has release projections five times. each one of these projections, the inflation rate has come in below this target. why then has a policy been set to consistently undershoot the target? >> was that 140 characters? [laughter] >> i suspect many in our audience had related questions. >> that's a very good question. when we tried to address, as i said earlier when been collins was asking me about the risks of some of our policies, i was pointing out that inflation is low, and, indeed, is below the 2% target and unemployment is above where there should be. therefore there seems to be a pretty strong presumption that we should be aggressive on monetary policy. r. leslie, i think that does make the case for being aggressive, which we're trying to do. now, the additional point that i made, though, was that, you know, the short-term interest rate is close to zero and, therefore, we are now in the world of nonstandard monetary policy where asset purchases of communication and so on. as we were discussing earlier, we have to pay very close attention to the cost and risks and efficacy of these non standard policies as well as a potential economic benefits. to the extent that there are costs or risks associated with nonstandard policies which do not appear or at least not to the same degree for standard policies, then we would, you know, economics tells you when something is more costly you do less of it. we are being quite accommodative. we are working hard to try to strengthen the economy. inflation is close to the target. it is not radically far from the target. in trying to think about what the right policy is we have to think about not only the macro economic outlook which is obviously critical, but also the cost at risk associated with the individual policies that we might apply. >> i would actually like to follow up on that question a little bit. one of the things that you mentioned earlier, which is in the toolkit, and which you have been trying to use in a variety of ways is the way that the fed explains its policy to the public. a first there was a number of announcements that dates for how long interest rates would remain low, more recently the move to making a condition of performance and a variety of changes, such as more information and the minutes about the kind of information, the kind of discussion that has happened at the fed. i wonder whether that increased information about what the fed is thinking uc as helping to be more effective or, perhaps, being complicating the message to some degree. >> well, of course, that is to some extent of to the auditors, the b holders to determine whether they think it is helpful or not, but i think that to address your specific points that switching from the date, you know, when we started out by trying to convey to the markets when we thought, you know, short-term interest rates might start to rise, initially we get a date which was just our best guess. as conditions changed, we changed that data a couple of times. a better way to do it, in my view, is instead of talking about a date which is very non transparent way to explain what you're doing people say, well, how they get that date? what is it that it means? instead, we have tried to do in our more recent evolution is to try to explain what we will be looking for in terms of unemployment inflation, to maine mandated objectives before we would begin the process of raising interest rates. so that is, first of all, much more transparent. it helps people understand what our thinking is and where looking at. also, if the outlook changes -- supposed really good news comes in and i hope it does, but about unemployment. if we were using the date people would not know how to adjust that. how do we change that? is the day still valid? but if we are using the guidepost in terms of inflation and unemployment than the investors and the market can say that dates were read it to six and a half% unemployment seems to be closer than we thought which would allow us to change our estimate of when the fed will respond. so that would allow a greater clarity about how policy will evolve over time. that is our goal. we have worked as a committee. it is not easy to work with 19 people who have strong opinions, but over time we have tried to increase clarity and communicate more clearly. each individual change can be debated, but if you looked at the broad sweep and will we have accomplished of the past 15 years are so at the federal reserve, it has been an enormous change. we are much, much more transparent. >> this shift from fed speak to the talking about fiscal cliff is really quite striking. >> a question from an audience member. one asset of the financial policy that required reform that is not currently being discussed in the media? >> the main area that has been put aside for the time being is the government sponsored enterprise, fannie mae and freddie mac which were taken into receivership at the very beginning of the crisis because of the losses they suffered on mortgages and because of their low levels of capital. at think their is a pretty widespread agreement in washington that reform is needed for those institutions and the treasury has put out some alternative suggestions, other suggestions have been made by members of congress that so far not too much progress has been made in that area and is one pretty obvious area that needs to be addressed. i would say that, you know, the dodd-frank bill is very broad and has covered a lot of the major parts of the financial system. >> this question comes from an audience member. how do you respond to people who question the constitutionality of the federal reserve and would like to severely weaken it and furthermore, respond to members of congress who wish to audit the fed? >> , and not a lawyer, so -- never mind. i am not a lawyer, but the fed has been around for a century and nobody so far has had a supreme court case. i'm not going to get into that issue. i think the fed performs the critical role of managing the monetary system which is, of course, a power that congress has to delegate which is done. let me talk to the other issue which, i think, is more substantive. as you know, there are bills in congress that would audit the fed. it sounds like something happen -- anyone object to auditing the fed? don't have to look a people's books? well, the trouble is that it is not what it is about. it is a misnomer. the fed's books are thoroughly and completely opposite. we aren't first by an outside private-sector accounting firm which gives us a clean bill of health. secondly, all of our books, financials, everything is open to the gao, government accountability office, which is -- you know, works for congress and the government can look at anything it wants to. and the inspector general, it will to evaluate any aspect of the fed's financial. if you'd like to speak -- see more about this, the fed website has a detailed discussion of the various audits that the federal reserve answers to. all of the activities are thoroughly audited. one exception. the -- date created the government accountability office, the gao. there is an exception made. they can do anything it wants, but what it cannot do is go and and make a monetary policy decision. now, what it the bill would do is strike that clause. so if the spotted the fed bill passed then a congressman it did not like the interest-rate move could say, the gao, go on with that. what that would mean is the government accountability office would send it staff into the federal reserve to look and see, what did you guys raise interest rates and began to investigate that decision? it seems to me, that is the first up to the federal reserve no longer being an independent central bank. very strong agreement around the world that if you want monetary policy made based on long-term considerations and not based on short-term political considerations the central bank needs to have some independence in making monetary policy. what this bill would do is strike at the heart of that independence. so it is my opinion that many people who support the bill think it means what it sounds like which is something about the financials, nothing to do with the financials. it has to do with whether or not congress can ask the gao to investigate a decision by the fed it does not like. again, if you want a healthy economy you need to have a strong and independent central bank which is not consistent with that bill. >> this question comes from twitter. the discussion of microeconomic issues of social media. any information from these discussions, and if so, how? >> well, you know, i read blocks . 140 characters limits the discussion on twitter. [laughter] so i think they have become a pretty important source of intellectual exchange. the same way -- there was a very important step. steve collins will remember this. it used to be it years ago, really long time ago, if you were an academic and wrote a paper and had to submit it to a journal, it took two years ago published and two years after you wrote a paper for anyone knew what you were working on. then came the intent and working papers and so on and precision, you know, papers were available almost immediately for professional evaluation, but even that, of course, involved a long delay involved in doing the research and writing the paper and so on. what if you have a shorter perspective, shorter idea that you want to put up there? well, the internet has provided useful ways for people to communicate, to discuss interesting and diaz of monetary policy or anything else. i follow a lot of baseball blocks myself actually. [laughter] so that is just the next natural step to creating a conversation among people. i think that is very constructive. there are at federal reserve board's. the atlanta fed, new york fed, and we have twitter. we have facebook. we are moving along here. [laughter] so we are still a little bit old-fashioned, but social media provides a convenient way to communicate quickly, work with people, exchange of ideas, and keep track of what is going on. so, you know, i think it is a positive element. >> perhaps we should encourage you to follow the tigers will your online. unfortunately, we arrive time. i would like to thank our questioners for posing questions. i would like to thank all of you in the room and on line for joining us in today's conversation. you can find information on future policy talks at our website and through our twitter site. i hope you will follow us. we certainly will be following the fed. chairman, thank you very much for joining us. thank you. [applause] >> washington journal tomorrow morning, our guest will include republican representative scott virgil of virginia, a member of the budget and armed services committee will talk about his recent letter to gop colleagues making what has been described as a conservative case for more revenue and will discuss those with an agenda for the new congress which representative matthew carr right, a member of the oversight and government reform committee. live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> tuesday boosting job creation and reviving the economy through innovation. the institution host business and technological firms ceos for the day-long event. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> politics and analysis and reaction to the president's final news conference of his first term. the president had a lot to say about the upcoming fight with congress on raising the debt ceiling. what was he trying to say? >> what he was trying to do was outlined up rammers of the debate to the american people to put the republicans on the defensive, trying to define what the debt ceiling fight or lack thereof as far as he sees it should be about and what it should not be about. what he said over and over again was that spending has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling. that was a direct shot at republicans who have said that if they want to negotiate deep significance spending cuts to federal spending with the president in exchange for granting him the authority to borrow more money, he is trying to separate those two issues. >> now, when will all of this come to a head? >> some time in the february or march timeframe. the treasury department has just sent a letter out saying that the extraordinary measures that they are currently using in order to make sure that the country can pay its bills, send out benefit checks and things like that, will expire sometime in february or march. will we are dealing with here is according to the administration, technically we should have passed the debt ceiling at the beginning of the year, but through accounting tricks and playing with numbers and what have you we were able to extend that by which we can continue to do things according to business as usual, and the treasury is saying that at least definitely by march, sometime in march they're going to need authority from congress to raise the borrowing limits of that they can raise more money. >> our republicans in congress reacting to the president's comments from this press conference? >> we're not too sure yet. republicans are just getting back into town this evening for a day of voting on tuesday, and then they will disappear again for their annual policy and political retreats in virginia. senate republicans are not scheduled to be in this week. the send is not scheduled to be in this week. we know that -- and i know from following twitter and watching the reaction from speaker of the house and republican senate leader that they did not appreciate the president's comments or agree with them. they held fast that they expect to passed legislation on the house side where they have a majority. they expect to pass legislation that will include the story of raise the debt ceiling and also address the spending issue as they see it. >> and what is the -- is any of this complicated by the fact that treasury secretary tim is the geithner is eager to exit is posed? >> i don't think so. this is all about the president and what he wants. chief of staff, incoming treasury secretary, former omb office of management and budget director. he knows these issues. and so they have been through this exercise before, as you know, in the summer of 2011. this is nothing new, and i don't think it affected either way. >> thank you for the insight. >> anytime. .. monday evening the house rules commitey considered arguments on the relief bill. the senate passed a bill providing $60 billion in aid but the house did not take up that legislation. house republicans proposed a number of amendments to the relief package, including those requiring the aid to be offset by spending cuts. this is three hours. [inaudible conversations] >> be in order. good afternoon. delighted that we are holding our first rules committee meeting, mr. chairman, welcome. we're delighted that you're here today. we are here to talk about the supplemental funding for the super storm that arrived on or about october 29th, on the northeast coast to new york and new jersey, and it is a very important day for us, not only to have a process that we've been attempting to work through on a bipartisan basis in the rules committee and in the appropriations committee, but also with a good number of members who have had a lot of input, governors, mayors, members of congress, and lots of people have provided us with a lot of content. on october -- i'm sorry -- on december 28th, the senate passed hr1 with an amendment sent to the house, and this was essentially a $60.4 billion emergency funding for what might be called the superstorm or hurricane sandy relief. the bill was not considered in the house before the end of the 112th congress, so we're here today. the first effort we'll have in the congress to make sure that we are adequately reviewing the requests, listening to our a appropriate operators and any members members that chooses to be before the committee today. so, mrs. slatter, i don't know if you have any opening words you would like to give before we acknowledge the witnesses we have. >> i appreciate your letting me do that. i first want to thank my -- appreciate and point out my friend and colleague, miss bowen, will be here as the ranking member on the appropriations. we congratulate her on that. happy to have you here. what the people of new jersey and new york are saying, give us some help. i'm glad we're here, all the amendments and over half of them cut, the aid that we needed, and i know all of you heard over and over again that all three of those states are donor states that send more money to washington every year than they ever get back. so given that and the fact our generosity when everybody else's states were in trouble, is very troubling to us. it will be 78 days from a disaster and just now dealing with it in the house. i'm glad -- we need to do this. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentlewoman very much and as noted, it is 78 days. we appropriately waited some 40 days for the administration to do the proper work, to work with the governors to do the assessment, to make sure that their requests would be appropriate. we understand the timeliness. i think if there's one thing, louise, we all agree on, and as members of congress, that we care. we care deeply about the people who are impacted, and i hope that today's hearing and the final result will be one that people see where we, as the united states, can work well together. and i acknowledge that. >> we hope that as well. the combined governors of the three states have identified $18 billion in damage. we need every cent, even more if we're able to get it, because the fact that people are still so many of them still homeless, that we have special regulations to get children to school wherever we can get them to school, and it's a cold winter up there. what happens in this committee is going to determine whether or not we get the aid we need. >> yes, ma'am. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> mrs. slaughter for not just your comments but working through this process, you and your staff and the committee, and i thank you. we now want to welcome our lead witnesses today, of course we start with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. mr. chairman, i'll let you open up the testimony. written testimony will be submitted into the record without objection. i will accept any testimony the gentleman has. >> mr. chairman, thank you, and congratulations to the gentleman. >> thank you very much. >> it's good to see again our colleague from new york, a ranking member thus far, and to welcome new members of the rules committee, and welcome back returning ones. i'm also pleased to be sitting with the new ranking member of our committee, anita loy -- can you hear now? pardon my flu-impacted voice. but we want to welcome nita loy as a ranking member of the committee. she has been a hard worker and fair and impartial colleague when it comes to doing the right thing. so welcome to this new chore. we had a great relationship with your predecessor, norm dicks, and i look forward to the same kind of relationship with nita, to return the committee's work to the regular order, and to be sure that people have their opportunity to impact whatever legislation we're considering. we're here, of course, to present legislation providing urgently needed funding for hurricane sandy, relief and recovery. there's no point in trying to thoroughly explain why it's crucial that we consider and pass this legislation. given the size and the scope of the devastation caused by the storm. it's clear that recovery from this terrible hurricane will take months and years even, not days and weeks. and thousands of victims are currently awaiting much-needed assistance. what you have already provided, however, in the regular disaster relief fund that is set aside each year for disaster relief, some 11 plus billion dollars -- i think around 5 billion of that has been allocated and this bill would include another six from that fund. there's an immediate need for emergency funding. no question about it. that's what this bill would provide. and as i said all along, as further spending beyond this is required, we can propose that as we receive further justifications from the authorities on long-term recovery. either as part of an omnibus supplemental or regular appropriated bill. to that end, this legislation will provide $17 billion in immediate relief funding to support the disaster relief fund and for transit and housing recovery. army corps of engineers projects and other emergency needs are included. of note, this legislation does not include about 9.7 billion in funding for the national flood insurance program, which the house and senate approved last week. mr. chairman, we crafted this legislation responsibly. giving the administration's request and the senate-passed bill a hard scrub, eliminating what the consider unnecessary spending. we have adjust funding levels to make the best use of taxpayer dollars. we also removed objectionable provisions added by the senate, including no earmarks. the senate had included multiple provisions directing funds to specific projects. and also we kept the money specific, to the immediate sandy disaster needs at hand and no more. this funding addresses the most pressing needs in the affected region, while making careful decisions to guarantee we're getting the most out of each and every dollar spent on recovery. we have included important oversight measures, and reporting requirements, to prevent abuse, ensuring federal agencies are using these funds responsively and effectively. i'm requesting an appropriate rule for this legislation to ensure swift passage. hurricane sandy has brought much of the northeast region to its knees. and as it has been in the past, it's once again our duty to help our people and their communities get back on their feet in a timely fashion. our energy and water appropriations subcommittee chairman will be offering a separate amendment to this bill, providing an additional $33 billion for disaster relief to support funding for longer term recovery efforts and infrastructure improvements, which he will present to the committee. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, sir. welcome. [inaudible conversations] >> i know you've been up here before. when the room gets more people in it, it's harder to hear. >> is this better? >> much better. >> well, i will thank you a second time, chairman. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear that. [laughter] >> i'll thank you as many times as you like because this money is so essential for new york and new jersey, and connecticut and pennsylvania, and it's a pleasure for me to be here with you, ranking member, and the entire committee. i want to thank you in advance for addressing this very, very essential request, and i also want to thank my warm welcome from my friend, chairman rogers. we've work together on appropriations for many years and i know he will be fair in supporting this essential request. i'm very grateful for the opportunity to testify on behalf of speedy passage of this legislation. the underlying bill with the addition of the amendment will help families, businesses, and communities affected by sandy to recover and rebuild. sandy, as many of you know, devastated much of the northeast, and is one of the costliess natural disasters in our nation's history. i am pleased that the first order of business in the 113th 113th congress may be passing this emergency disaster relive. clearly we were disappointed that similar legislation wasn't enacted before the end of the last congress, and i remain wary that some in the house would scuttle the effort. by friday evening i understand the rules committee had received 92 amendments. i'm deeply concerned that the rule will make an order so many as to constitute filibuster by amendment or any number of small reduction amendments making for deaths by a thousand cuts. so i hope that won't be. i also worry that the rules committee will make an order poison pill amendments, such as several attempts to re-litigate davis-bake cop or other controversial matters and unprecedented efforts to offset the entire cost of the bill, including fema's disaster relief fund. i ask the committee respectfully not to propose a rule that hinders swift house passage of the bill. the senate can pass and the president can sign. on the other hand, i share the concern of some of the other amendments sponsors. mr. holt's amendment, to waive the fy1999 limitation of use of cdbg funds is a good idea. i also support efforts to help others affected by sandy or impacted by other natural disasters. however, my chief concern, and that of my colleagues, is speedy passage of hr-152 as amend any free freeling amendment. my first concern is seeing this legislation promptly enacted. if the rules committee decides not to make the other useful amendments in order, i hope we can find other opportunities to move them. again, i thank my good friends, mr. rogers, mr. free lien highsen. for their efforts i thank the number new york, new jersey, and other eastern delegations for their hard work and all our colleagues across the country who are being supportive. i hope hill commisee and the house ill act quickly to philadelphia the obligation of the federal government to help those affected by sandy to recover and rebuild. thank you. >> thank you very much. your testimony is obviously compelling about the need for us to move carefully, quickly, and properly forward. i might add, if i can, that the gentleman, mr. cole, a member of your committee, has been in constant contact with the committee working through these issues with committee members, and i would like to if i can hold up as a good example of our commitment from the rules committee, to the gentleman tom cole, who has done a yeoman's job on behalf of this committee. really done a good job. so thank you for your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to congratulate miss lowey also on being the new ranking member of the appropriations committee, and thank her and the chairman for their presentation. i don't have any questions. thank you. >> mrs. slaughter? >> just want to echo what miss lowey said. thank you, mr. rogers, for your concern as well. what you said about many amendments that could do serious damage here, and we don't want to find ourselves with a bell the senate can't take and we have to ping-pong around for months. so i hope that this committee will take the comments to heart. it's important we get this done quickly. >> miss bishop. >> mr. mcgovern, thank you for your testimony and thank all of the northeast state delegations here for their advocacy. i want to say, i regret we didn't do this before we left the old congress behind us. we seem to me that in case of disaster, it should not be controversial. it should be our response. this seems like an unnecessary convoluted process. so, the base bill that will be amendmented and then all these other amendments here. and i understand everybody's concern about offsets and that stuff, but you know what? if this were afghanistan or iraq, nobody would be talking about offsets. it would have been approved yesterday. this is our own country, and there was an urgent need to address the catastrophe that occurred in the aftermath of hurricane sandy, and i hope we can all come together and avoid a big brouhaha on the house floor and get this emergency i assistance approved as soon as possible and i will do everything i can to aid in that effort, thank you. >> just quickly, want to welcome you both. you make a wonderful looking distinguished couple there. butter up my chairman and my ranking member any chance i can. >> just so you know, tom, we need to be careful. cynthia is watching every move ore here. >> she's a good friend and i know her well. and they're both good friend. >> thank you for pulling me back there, mr. chairman. seriously, i have had the opportunity. i want to thank both of you and through you the staffs of the appropriations committee. i know how hard they have been working. product took a long time to arrive from the administration, work through the senate, and i very much appreciate the diligence to give us a good product and clean product. i have no questions because i saw what a great job they did. >> i want to congratulate the gentleman for serving on the rules committee, and also my appropriations committee. he is a very valued member of the committee. the appropriations committee, and i think you agree, he is value here. and i appreciate his willingness to get deeply involved in the process we're in now on this bill. as a member of the rules committee, with the background he has from appropriations. thank you, mr. cole, for your good service. >> thank you, mr. chairman, yield back. >> thank you very much. if i could add in that tom had previously served on the committee, and had done in my opinion, as the incoming chair, phenomenal job and felt like we needed him on the commitee. obviously with the new kind of processes we have happening, we're going to count on members of the committees to come and be integrated when the bills come before this committee, and tom, once again, as done an outstanding job. mr. hastings? >> thank you very much. chairman rogers, can you tell me whether or not you envision that with two proposals as we all are proceeding -- and this is just a process question -- the why of it all issue guess, is why two proposals? i envision there is a possibility of fur -- further delay. what is your thought with reference to that? >> i said from the very outset when this storm hit, there would probably be successive steps we would take. as more justifications came to us. and so i started out with the idea we would have at least two sides, first an immediate burst of money which my bill represents, which, with the almost 10 billion for the flood insurance program, totaled around 27 plus billion dollars. that was the first crunch. that would carry is basically through the end of the fiscal year. then we would have time to look at the justifications for longer term recovery efforts and take care of that in the regular appropriating process for the coming year, or, as another supplemental in due course of time. the effort was to try to be a better business and a responsible, fair, and effective way. >> if i may respond. >> yes. >> as you heard before, the chairman and i work very closely together, but that doesn't mean we have to agree on every little thing. we can respectfully discuss these issues, and i think that's why we have been effective working together. in the case of sandy, as miss slaughter mentioned were, the original estimate from governor christie and governor cuomo was upwards of $80 billion, and then they, as members of our committee, went through every single line to see if we can get it down to the 60.4. now, i think it's important 0 to respond to your question to respond to my colleagues' comments because, as we know, with large projects, there is such tremendous damage to the transportation system, to the tunnels through which transportation flows. they were flooded. in fact, just yesterday i was told again by an expert, because we have all been looking through this bill line-by-line -- that we're lucky that the tunnels were flooded because it didn't destroy penn station, and we've seen the areas such as the rockaways where whole communities of housing were destroyed. people were out of work. small businesses. now in order to plan in order to let contracts go, in order to really have a plan in place to fix those large, large systems, you really have to go to bid early. so, although i know there was some who felt you could appropriate part of the money now and part of the money later on, with great respect for the distinguished chairman, those who are managing these projects, the corps, fema, et cetera, understand you have to understand early on the total package in order to make careful analysis, wise investments in the planning. so, that is why passing both of these bills is so essential, and i do hope that we can do it as expeditiously as tomorrow. >> my concern, as i indicated, is that the possibility of this -- that there's going to -- once all these measures get to the floor and create further delay. we already delayed beyond the scope and intent of most of us when we think about the needs of the people, and the fact is that you all have done a good job, and it need bows clearly understood that in chairman rogers' proposal are a number of measures that are not just sandy-related, and i hesitate to talk about fema, because everytime they seem to get it right, we seem to change them. there's money in here for the department of agriculture, the army corps of engineers, disaster loan program, as mr. rogers pointed out, the flood program, the department of the interior. so people need to clearly understand this isn't all sandy but it is as a result of sandy that we come to the process we're considering. here's what want us to begin thinking. in this country, in the year 2012, there have been 46 disaster declarations, and in the year 2011 there were 99. so, we need to invest in mitigation of funds now and i don't understand the need to delay those mitigation circumstances further. i have a statement, i am going to read it. i've been saying for a long time that we need a faster way to end-run around political games like this, or from first failure to even bring the senate boil the floor for a vote last congress, to try to hold up the vote on this bill, demonstrates exactly how important it is to have other options to get help to americans who have lost everything so they can get back up on their feet, and footnote right there, several of us have experienced in our various areas of the country, smaller disasters that don't meet the standard that large and awesome disasters like sandy, but you know something? when a person loses their house in a tornado, that's a complete disaster to them, if it ain't but one, and somewhere along the line we need to think about what can we do to help people in those situations? creative things to do, just to test it, would be to have a voluntary check off on their income tax return. i know we do these kind of things in florida. florida power and light company has a checkoff. i, among others, i'm sure, subscribe it to, to help people who can't meet their needs. it would be a good test run to see, and then in future disasters we would have an opportunity to know exactly how many people really are mindful, never mind the word climate change -- you tell me if something ain't wrong with this whole world's disasters, when houston, texas, has more snow than chicago, illinois, something is upside-down in many respects. chairman sessions, you and mr. cole and other members of the rules committee, and mr. bishop i believe on one occasion, have heard me argue we need to do exactly what the japanese government does. they know that they're going to have earthquakes. and in light of that, what they have done is established inside their budget a specific committee that deals with disasters, so you can move this herredly. we have this process. i've seen good and bad in this regard. katrina, all the initiative came out, called it a failure of initiative. now, we did, however, move $50 billion in that one, in ten days. there are now three of us here from florida, and my colleague, and i experienced the awesomeness of hurricane andrew and, therefore, all of us, every last one of us, in this body, ought to be trying to think ahead, not just right now, but how can we do the things that are necessary? now, i do accuse some members in the other party of having agendas when they start talking about offsets and a whole bunch of things like that, that are going to further delay. i was very proud there was one young man i saw on television that did go up to new jersey and actually saw things -- ignore the fact that when his disaster struck, he had gotten funds for it it, but when he saw it, he changed his mind. that's politically convenient. but all of us have essence these things. i have personal feelings about that are relative in the areas suffered that i know. i grew up in queens and atlantic city, and to see the boardwalk gone, my dad and my mom and i one christmas walked on rockaway boardwalk, and to see those things gone is hurtful to me as a person. so i take my responsibilities here very seriously when it comes to individuals having been harmed. we need to be really mindful that we're talking about people, and they're sitting there wondering, what in the world is it that we do down here that really does help people if we can't move whatever money we are capable of moving, and then to not bring the senate bill the under because ostensibly somebody says there was supposed to be pork in it. whatever came from the senate, i didn't have pork it in. whatever roles out of here, that doesn't have something that is special for somebody. thank you, jeremy rogers and ms. lowey for putting $35 million in here for florida's beaches. today i looked down and say to my lady friend all the time, that i'm betting on the walk, those beaches are eventually going to overtake -- not in my lifetime but in the in lifetime of younger people here -- you won't be going to south beach. you'll be going to south beach west, because cannot provide, and we're beginning to see it. and until such time as we stand up and face our -- the harsh realities of disaster, whether we call it climbed change or just hot and cold, the simple fact of the matter is that we owe it to the people in new jersey and new york and connecticut and elsewhere that sack diaffected, and we owe it to ourselves to be mindful of the numerous disasters on the horizon that we can't predict, but we can prepare for, and if we don't, then we will be doing ourselves a terrible disservice. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. woodall. >> i tell you, it's always one the great pleasures of my week, when it's been a tough week, controversy and lots of frustration on capitol hill, when i would see mr. dicks and mr. rogers come together in here and generally they agreed on more than they disgrade on, but when they disagreed, it lifted me up instead of setting me back, and i look forward that as well. let me ask you, in that context, miss lowey, we heard warnings from the ranking member about unnecessary delay. the gentleman from massachusetts talked about lots of amendments in the process. the gentleman from florida asked about why it is, it's moving in multiple pieces? what i heard the chairman says he has no expectation that this initial -- i say initial -- this second -- this another step in trying to responsibly get this money to folks absolutely as fast as we can. thinking about trying to rally around those things we agree upon instead of focusing on those things that we disagree. i know you take the chairman at his word, in fact in your presentation you said you hoped there would be additional opportunities down the road to include those things. why aren't we getting all the admonitions from any colleagues about the delay and urgency, why aren't we rallying around the chairman's proposal as that which we know we can do today, getting that money into the hands of those that need it desperately, and then coming back, as the chairman has committed, and get the rest of it done, too. >> first of all i thank you for your kind words and i know chairman rogers and i won't disappoint you. he hope to continue to work together as partners, and i am rallying around mr. rogers' amendment and mr. feeling's amendment. it's all essential. when you have a catastrophe such as sandy, tunnels are flooded. people can't get to work. many restaurants were put out of business. people who were working in those restaurants or the stores, whether it's in peerment or the rockways or westchester county or connecticut or pennsylvania, when you have to plan ahead for rebuilding, getting these people back their livelihood, their lives, their homes, their businesses, hospitals, like nyu, have to plan ahead. we can't sign contracts. you can't make plans unless all the money is there. now, as chairman rogers and i know, that doesn't mean all this money is going to go out the door. there's a lot of accountability in this bill and we looked through every line in the bill, made decision as to what we could live with and what we couldn't live with. so unless this congress agrees on what to do in emergency situations, you can't move ahead. so i think it's important for us who have worked for appropriations, as mr. cole has done for many years -- we understand the effort doesn't go out the door immediately but the commitment has to be there, and when the notification goes out, we make sure that every dollar is accounted for, because we appreciate the generosity of the american people, specifically this congress in responding. >> let me ask you this, you have experience on the appropriations commitee i don't. one of the thing is love about your committee is you almost always, whether it's republican chairman or democratic chairman, come to this rules commitee and ask for an open rule for the consideration of your legislation. you say, as a committee, we've done the very best we can do. but if any of the other 435 members out there think they can add something it to, to improve it in some way, we welcome that vote on the floor of the house. i love that about your committee. the only commit glee congress that comes with that, we did our best but we welcome your suggestions, too. i think i might agree with all that you have just had to say. it's balancing that against the urgency that i know exists in this circumstance. i would welcome an open rule on $60 billion worth of aid. in my part of the world, georgia, we may be the largest state in the cotton belt there, but our annual budget is less than $20 billion. so, the constituents that have called me, constituents who have gone out of their pocket to write a check to the red cross because this affected them at a personal level, folks who have written a check the salvation army because they know they have neighbors in need, and that's who we are as a people. it's one thing to get 17 billion out the door without the scrutiny of an open process. but to get 60 billion out the door without that scrutiny is another order of magnitude there. do you not share my conflict, that if we have an urgent need, let's agree on that number we can agree on and let get it out the door with haste? if we had a giant need, then let's give it the full and thoughtful scrutiny, a thorough and thoughtful scrutiny we owe folks back home? >> well, first of all, appreciate your kind words about the appropriations process and we won't let you down. but i also appreciate the wisdom of the rules committee, and i know that you will judiciouslily go through all 92 amendments and make a decision as to how many of those amendments are constructively presented to this committee and hope to really help responding to the disaster of sandy. now, i've looked through those amendments as well, and some could improve the bill. but i can assure you that we have all worked, the new york delegation, the new jersey delegation, the connecticut and pennsylvania delegation, worked with the governors, governor christie and governor cuomo -- and mayors who have direct responsibility, and many of these members' amendments were not constructively help the repair of their cities and all the cities impacted by this. >> the gentleman -- mr. chairman? >> i appreciate the point that the gentleman is making. this being a huge request. 60 billion plus. on katrina, we also did two tronchs on katrina but did it very rapidly, and because of that we then had to go back in later and rescind some 23 billion that we had appropriated that was not needed. so, that's what we're trying to avoid here. what i'm trying to avoid is not having the same kind of situation we had with katrina, where we had to go back and in retrieve some $23 billion, chris no small amount of money. number two, there has been some delay on this because it is such a huge request. and we were scouring the numbers, trying to understand it, and justify it. we've got justify every dollar that we recommend that you spend. in the meantime, though, the disaster relief fund was already there. every year, we appropriate a certain amount of money from the disaster relief fund to cover the immediate needs of disaster like this one. this year there was summon 11 plus billion dollars. to date the disaster relief fund has a balance of 3-1/2 billion. so, they have spent down from 11 plus, down to that figure. so far, fema has been able to award the states a total of 3.1 billion for the immediate needs that have been taking place while we were -- for example, new york, received $2.169 billion. new jersey, almost 900 billion. connecticut, 38 plus million. and so on. for a total of 3.1 billion that has already been given the states for the immediate needs. my bill would take care of the next step. that would give us time, several months, actually, before it's required that we provide moneys for real long-term needs. >> if i may again -- i appreciate your questions. with great respect to the chairman, katrina money went out, if i remember correctly in 109 days. it's already over 70 days. there are people who are out of work. there are people without homes. there are communities that didn't even get their heat back on before, i think it was about ten days ago. and again, when you talk to me about a huge transportation system, when you're talking about tunnels that were filled with water, preventing people from new jersey to come into work into manhattan, and i'm sure mr. friehling will discuss that, and other members of the delegation. you have to prepare ahead. how are you going to make sure your transportation system functions? how do you respond to people who have lost their entire lifely hood, their homes. so, again, it's not as if, when this passes and we would be very grateful if it passes as requested because we think it's so essential. it's not as if the check is written on the first day, but with the commitment of the united states of america, those who are working as part of the partnership between the federal government and the locals, can make plans, make commitments, and move ahead. it is absolutely essential because if you do this piecemeal, you can't plan repairing and mitigation necessary just on taking one part of it, the huge transportation system. >> one of the things i love about my part of the world, i'm sure it's the same in your part of the world during it's the way folks respond their neighbors in times of need and all the checks that folks wrote from metro atlanta to send to people they'd never met in new york and new jersey. hadn't given it a second thought. we're probably the beneficiaries for giving because you want to be there for folks. and it's those very same people who wrote those checks who are calling me and writing to my office, to say, you did 9 billion last yankee. if the chairman is proposing to do 17 billion today and you you're talking about even more tomorrow, we want to help but we're reading store after store -- a story out today, somebody doing a word search on the bill and filing guam the mariana islands in there, and i say i know the hurricane didn't impact guam and the islands. why are there funding opportunities for those folks. >> you can read it in the bill. >> that's what is so frustrating to me, is that we, we here in the body politic, create cynicism. we create it. it doesn't exist naturally in our communities back home. we create it, and we have an opportunity here with the chairman's mark, to make certain that we get dollars out the door to folks who need it and make certain we don't do one thing to further that cynicism back home that folks are profiting from other families' tragedy, and i just -- i wish we could rally around that. i yield back. >> thank you very much. the spirit that has been talked about today is very much alive and i hope that you sensed this, that this committee does have great -- not just empathy but we care vary much -- very much about the people who are impacted. i hear that word, talking about people. people we care about. i previously lived in new jersey. i do admit that i'm thinking about running against rodney in a couple years based upon how he does with this bill. i'm kidding, rodney. but i know the people up there, and they're fabulous people, and it does make a difference with how we talk about this as you suggest, and i appreciate that. >> thank you. in the west, in colorado and states like m-bishop's states and others, we're unlikely to ever be impacted by a hurricane. however, we have disasters, and particularly last summer we had a disastrous wildfires. they were presidentially declared disasters and the stafford disaster rely and emergency assistant act, and they touch the lives in our districts of many of our friends, mr. gardner will testify about his example myself and mr. lamb boring and others. tens of thousands of people were evacuated from their homes. many people we know, our friends, my home was under evacuation warning. we had to be prepared to evacuate on notice. my parents as well. hundreds of homes were lost, lives were lost, every bit the disaster. disaster takes different forms in different areas and this one was heartbrokenning disaster to see our beloved mountains ablaze to recognize that hundreds of families would never be able to recover anything from their homes. i visited some of those charred remains. nothing is left. in the aftermath, the emergency water shed protection act program provides funding and support to restore and stablize soil and mitigate flood risks. in fact saving money in the long term. one of most immediate dangers after fire is risk of flood and damage the water shed that could cause untold initial damage. the national resource conservation service estimated colorado needs 19.8 million in emergency water protection for the fire-ravaged areas and there were members during those fires talked to myself, talked to mr. gardner, said how are you doing? i think many of us had to fly home early one week we were here, it was a disaster. mr. gardner and myself visited the command center that was fighting the fires, and there's another set of fires near mr. lambborn's district that threatened the biggest city in colorado, and there were evacuation warnings in that major city as well in december, members of our delegation sent a letter to the president expressing the importance of this funding the senate version of sandy emergency bill that was passed december 28th provided the water shed protection to all the states that needed the funding, including colorado. there will fires across the west. keep in mind that disaster take different forms, and while i don't think colorado or wyoming or utah will ever have a hurricane, this was a disastrous summer in terms of forest fires and frank live it was wrong for the house remove the fire recovery funding from the emergency supplemental. that's why representative gardner has brought forthan amendment. we'll talk about that when he testifies to the committee. which i cosponsor along with all the republicans from our delegation, our cosponsors of that bill as well. the amendment as well. the question i pose is, how can be work with you to include this, and while it's not included in the managers are amendment can we clue this has standon item? i'm confident it will pass. there's a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers. very little money in the scheme of things and a disaster i know everybody has reached out to us personally on, and this is something that will prevent the additional disaster in the form of flooding and damaging the water shed. that's the question i'll pose to you. and we can talk more about this he mr. gardner testifies. i home you can encourage our committee to make this amendment an order. >> mr. rogers. >> well, as we've said, this bill -- my part of the bill is sandy only. we tried to rifle shot moneys through this immediate catastrophe that is in place in the northeast. so we kept everything out of my bill, except sandy. now, there is -- we appropriated some $216 million in the regular process last year. for the emergency water shed program, which the gentleman first -- that was in the 2012 agriculture appropriations bill. so there has been money in that fund. i can't tell you where it stands today. however, the administration has not requested additional money for that program. to address nonsandy disasters that fall under the stafford act. so, we would respond if we had the request from the administration. >> well, again, i'll -- this was in the senate bill that passed, that the administration supported, that the house should have passed, that would have been law, that would have actually deployed the resources already on the street. so i don't think there's a question of administrative support as far as i'm aware of on this, and would be happy to get a statement from the administration to that effect. never heard of that problem before. there's not in the money there the money is not there. there's regular funding for the program but we had a disaster, a declared disaster in colorado, and disasters are disasters and i don't want to talk about equivalency and i know the suffering of our constituents, we can't compare. i have hundreds of family and mr. gardner and others, who lost everything they have in a disaster. the funds are depleted. our delegation isn't as big as the new york delegations and i hope we don't decide based upon that. miss lowey can hopefully encourage the house to work on this amendment. >> i certainly believe that communities affected by wildfires deserve our help, and i would be very supportive. my fundamental responsibility is still -- getting this bill through as fast as we can because it's over 70 days as of now. about it certainly thing you have a need and its the fundamental responsibility of governans to respond to disasters. >> this will only delay the bill by the ten minutes to debate the amendment and two or five minutes for a vote. i hope the colorado families that lost their homes are worth the 15 minutes it would take this body to deliberate and prevent our soil erosion and we'll talk more about that when mr. gardner testifies. >> mr. nugent. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member. appreciate being here. coming from the state of florida, and as four members that sit on this body from the state of florida, we certainly understand disasters, living out on a peninsula like we do we dodge them all the time. sometimes we're not so fortunate to dodge them and we catch them. bag sheriff, you never know when it's going to strike you, and in new york, i think was -- new jersey was a perfect example of not knowing what's going to happen. i guess i'm just a little confused and i am sympathetic to mr. pollis and mr. gardner's plight in regard the wildfires that ravaged their areas. obviously not of their causing. why was that not -- this is a question -- why was that not covered underneath that disaster declares that the president made and come back to the spot in regard to those funds, or was it? >> the chairman yield? >> yes. >> it was a declared disaster year which cleared up existing funds. this has nothing to do with the funds for fighting the fires at the time. and some of the immediate work. what we're talking about now is the particular fund that has no additional money. the emergency water shed protection act. so, again, without emergency funding that was necessary because of the fires, the money would not be there to prevent soil erosion and additional damage. >> mr. rogers? >> the disaster relief fund money can be used for any presidentially declared disaster, including the colorado fire matter. so the disaster relief funds are there for that very purpose. what i -- i guess what i hate to see is when you have a disaster like sandy, other things get loaded into it because, i guess it's just -- it's there, and soil erosion is not necessarily a big deal to a lot of folks. what occurred with sandy and particularly the devastation occurred in new york and new jersey and connecticut, and other areas, i mean, it's on tv, it's obvious, the destruction is there, and what i don't want to see happen is that that get delayed because of addons. i worry about the fact that these are always supplementals and it's dollars we don't have to start with. i think that's what everybody is concerned with as we move forward. we do have to be there to reach out and protect our folks. how do we do that in the future? we know we're going to get struck with natural disasters. you can go back in time over the last ten years and average it out. how do we ever get the point where we at least budget for a bottom line so then when you need a supplemental like sandy, where it goes above and beyond, how do we get to that point? or do we? >> well next budget control act, we provided a piece of machinery that we thought would handle most occasions of disasters. we provided for a ten-year rolling average that would be provided for each year. in other words, we would total up all the disasters over the last ten years, divide by ten, and then put that amount of money in next year. we did that and the moneys for this current fiscal year, under that formula, was 11 plus billion dollar, which would cover the average normal disasters if you want to call it that. but along comes something like sandy, which dwarfs the so-called average disaster, requiring much more money than we had anticipated, obviously. but nevertheless that 11 plus billion has been available and is available for any disaster that is declared by the president, including the colorado fires. that fund is now down to, as i said before, $3.6 billion. as of the last few days. obviously not enough to cover all of the disasters that we're having to cover. so, thus the sandy special bill. >> i would just like to say briefly, as wise as members of the appropriations committee are, especially our chairman, we can predict earthquakes and. we can predict flooding, we can predict the suffering that results from these events that only nature, frankly, can predict, and we can't. so, it is a fundamental obligation in my judgment, of governance, to work together in partnership with the private sector and mr. woodall mentioned the salvation arm and all the other groups, the red cross and just local groups that organize to help people so they can help themselves. but government does have that fundamental obligation, and we can't always predict what the next catastrophe will be. >> very true. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. mr. webster. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have any questions. i would like to at least say this. what i see here in this supplemental is a process by which we cannot perfect from a substance standpoint because we don't allow amendments that are substantive in nature to be attached to an appropriation act and i think that's a good thing ... >> however if there was a national fund, there rubio cap. we could set forward constraints necessary proposed by all these numbers most cannot be made because of the clause. but then the body was determined -- determine how much to put into the fund in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i echo the sentiments of my former colleague about the need for national catastrophic funding. meanwhile of the forward to helping my brothers and sisters in the northeast. florida is no stranger to hurricanes, and catastrophes. i look forward to helping out. >> early reid had our meeting to talk about what a delight it is to have you on this committee with your expertise of foreign affairs, a ingenuous -- genuine service to the people of south florida. >> i am looking forward not to get another call tomorrow [laughter] >> he called a bunch. you understood that. dr. burgess? >> we do have some familiarity with tropical systems. and i would say to the gentleman from florida i spent time in new york. but there was viable information that i gathered. i will stop there. i look forward to rest of the testimony. >> thank you for appearing today. you have received input from a lot of members you have been diligent working together and i want to say to both of you for extending your time and effort for goebbels' sides have done a lot of work. and they could not have done their job without working with you. kudos to my staff of both sides of the aisle. >> i appreciate you mentioning staff. they work day and night and weekend and without sleep many times just like this bill. to this committee inappropriate -- appropriations committee but let me say this. from kentucky, and all other states, we feel for these states of the northeast better in severe distress. we have experienced similar types of disaster, but our hearts are with the people of the northeast. we appreciate the time allowed to perfect this legislation. >> time does matter. and the governors say in the mayor's reached he may have prepared remarks. he spent a great deal of time not with the preparation but also behalf of the delegations a and for a member to do leave me your home number. >> can be half of those that represent said northeast northeast, faq for your patience and forbearance. i have tried to revise my remarks. of using several like to say but also in knowledge as the ranking chairman we have felt your heartfelt feelings from around the country and you recognize your predicament, the disaster that we face. i will proceed. internet loggers, the talking heads and media after this exceptional storm and destruction have moved on to other stories. but if we represent these three states, i will assure you this suffering and damages real. the needs are great. for human statistics statistics, 346,000 household units were damaged or destroyed and i am sure there would give equal figures. it compared at 215,000 units from hurricane katrina and rita, a 47,000 families och are out of their homes today. i am sure there is a similar number for york. 2.four utility members who lost power many for over two weeks alone to make sure mind was the last so there is no criticism but for those who lost everything 190,000 businesses were affected with katrina and rita with many small businesses never reopened. the cost to businesses large and small, nursing homes for the of mass transit individual families go beyond the county. with the rest of the east coast when requesting 80 billion it is of large of amount they should -- a large amount of money the large amount of money the administration said they had scrubbed proposals lew try to narrow it down in that regard sacristy and cuomo and our delegations to were represented democrats and republicans believe $60 billion was a request for the state. emergency disaster that without hesitation historically have done that. mr. chairman lee count on you to help us. the fed officials and businessmen and women have war in the long term stable recovery requires an injection of resources to rebuild them strengthen the state's. it can wait to. it completes the package by adding 33 billion bringing the total of the national flood insurance authorization that to every extent possible the appropriations committee and died have scrubbed the president's request to limit funding for sandy related disaster needs. the majority is designated emergency because of the budget control act that i call satin and urgent efforts. to of this size the last two points i have no earmarks i'd like the senate bill and strips out authorization language per respectfully request to make my amendment in order for r will answer any questions you may have of me. >> i want to publicly express my thanks to you to have these discussions but for your leadership that it's time when it was critical when things needed a push or needed to be done well. that circumstance needs to be publicly acknowledge. there are many in the room that represent their managers see and bipartisan support as well as the work of governor christie and governor cuomo said in mecca i would consider that to be a model. >> mr. frelinghuysen does that have questions but we do have great sympathy for what has happened as a result of hurricane sandy. there are tremendous challenges there. i don't think anybody doubts that. thank you for your help on this issue. >> thank you for your expressions of concern. we are up against the wall. we need to have some certainty. one amendment that concerns me considerably is cutting money for a retract. why it is important. what happened in the northeast in reducing the 102 year-old amtrak tunnel it was flooded with 10 million gallons that shut down service for nearly two weeks. damage to the electrical system for the trains to operate efficiently was damaged by water infiltration. flooding of the power station that said new york downed was run on from this 7-foot storm surge with the new jersey transit system. what difference does that make? with the entire northeast and the economy of america. 20,000 people travel on the infrastructure between new jersey and new york every day. this devastation not having the trains so i a really hope it comes up we will consider the damage that i spoke to you before and to talk about the changes with fema. what happened with katrina was not only embarrassing but devastating. changes have been made but we will be voting on that. >> there is something on the floor which includes bipartisan support of the fema. >> with the authorization committee. >> i thank you for that. no further questions. >>. >> to any of the floridians for the thorough way line there is a $4 billion category for restoration but now it dealt specifically with hurricane sandy. is a restoration for the florida beaches? >> none that i know of. >> did i misunderstand? [inaudible conversations] >> if ibm correct, i will correct the record. the beaches are important. [laughter] >> give mr. hastings a chance. >> thank you very much. i think the people appreciate our sympathy but appreciate the vote to do reconstruction necessary and everybody is concerned but you could have a situation over it would mess things up but to have 77 restrictive rules and 55 close rules i would say this. oversight, oversight, oversi ght. we have borrowed trillions of dollars for war in iraq that has not given an oversight we try to have the amendment calling for oversight but these are people in our country who are hurting and need the money now. you have done a good job to make sure this is needed but it is hard to do the recovery that is needed in the piecemeal fashion. people need to plan accordingly. we have the opportunity now. thank you. >> i want to thank my friend for the amendment as well. that only to put together the package but answering questions and explaining the needs for stand. to give us a terrific statistics on how serious this is and doesn't have quite the visual play but you cannot see eight stories down. it was flooded. thinks of the electrical cable per cahow which is a misunderstanding how much money what you're asking the state's. it is not like they make enormous investment then sells but and duration of that will be helpful. >> they may be limited with their budgetary resources but they have things they are addressing but the depth of some of these tunnels of the new york city size too expensive for any city budget. >> what is related the appropriate as needed bet to the on projects of this size long-term commitments are important that means they will not be there. you cannot build half a bridge. can you give us some examples of how difficult it will be to plan going forward at 17 '04 50? >> you made my case for me but mr. rogers amendment is for federal agencies to report has to the progress they've made in the many not to be doled out but built into my amendment to our milestones with the department of transportation and housing and urban development with our real that work with amtrak along the northeast corridor. it is not unrelated to repairing things that occurred there is talk of that that we are not doing that. >> drying on in katrina we could go back and reclaim that so i would ask in your amendment if it would prevent us over appropriated trying to estimate. >> we could take the money out i would suspect must judgment would be better to if not we have the obligation to take a back to reduce the federal deficit. >> i have no questions. >>. thank you. i know he speaks on behalf of his constituents with his amendment to this bill, but besides this package it becomes larger than many appropriation bills. that is larger than homeland's security. larger than financial-services or state department foreign operations. these are which the congress deliberates over months. to hear the chairman say he was committed that they get what they need with priorities these are mandatory. that new jersey and new york will absolutely bring to fruition. amtrak will be repaired. realizing so many members have concerns every dollar that they need but does the chairman's commitment to deal with these issues come to him from your community back home not satisfied? >> the depth of the destruction is such if we don't move ahead, new jersey is the most populous state in the nation certainly the manhattan burroughs are very densely populated. and and housing is destroyed. that allowed the infrastructure to put enough money on the table to do it. >> i am certainly not trying to pit to use against each other but i heard the chairman say i thought it provided dollars to all of the request that had been certified. >> i can assure you the appropriations staff they drafted my a amendment to ensure a transparency with every expenditure listed and they scrub the bill to make sure it is relevant to sandy. a lot of money goes out the door for other disasters that we are held to a higher standard. it is fully transparent and entirely defensibldefensibl e. >> said gentleman has not been recognized. >> apologize. >> his words being held to a different standard are compelling. i say the same thing to my friend from massachusetts with domestic anwr funding. that can be unconscionable. we do not get much disaster funding we hold your needs in the highest. >>. >> governor christie made a commitment. he will make sure the money is well spent. with that economic authority they will be well cared for. >> i have an item to submit to to the record, october 7, 2012. [inaudible] in reference to mr. rogers's testimony lew said why did they request watershed protection many? they did. $150 million to mitigate and which again is should meet the needs and a specific request unpaged number three. it is clear this is something the administration supports that is shown with bipartisan support. >> do you have further questions? >> i yield back. >> mr. webster? >> pass the national capital fund. >> thank you. on behalf of this committee i will tell you it is the committee's perspective to have a fair process that has been exemplified by this committee. also knowing that it'd is her backyard, a figure for your representation. no call in the next panel am pleased the advised we're on votes. we have one suspension vote taking place. i am sorry. now it is three votes. hearing that i would like to call up the next panel. we have 92 amendments to deal with. as members choose to go and vote we will let them do that. so they may go back and forth and we will go one. mr. smith tom mcclure talk, mr. king you were here before to go vote jim, let's get you appear. and you can join appear also. we will begin with mr. smith >> chairman and members of the committee. our delegation is here in a bipartisan fashion in support of the amendment. talking about the homes destroyed, a 22,000 are inevitable. unbelievable. my district has been affected so please make that amendment when it votes. thank you for giving me a moment to speak about amendment number 85 regarding strategy of this legislation. substantial portion of the assistance provided during the time of the emergency from face base communities. to give donations to their local synagogues and churches they trust the money will be quickly and efficacious lee used to help those in need. so that they turn first even though houses of worship that were damaged they are not eligible under regulations for funding. it is a serious oversight. the union of orthodox jews have supported this amendment. it is entirely appropriate to provide private nonprofit and the catholic conference interest them to make the point* to the archbishop that houses of worship often play the irreplaceable role to the community for those that are ineligible with federal assistance beyond being a legal violation from the indiscriminate force of nature. just the catholic churches that were devastated to the tune of over $90 million. it is an idea whose time has come. >> good luck. >> out on the baseball field. [laughter] i am pleased we will bring this bill to the floor. the northeast communities have waited far too long. almost 80 days and counting. faugh -- and we saw the damage from above. the homes that were destroyed and to talk to people in different regions the northeast communities are waiting. my message is simple it costs no additional money to the treasury. it provides governors with the flexibility with grants should they determine that it removes the 30% cap to provide grants or principal forgiveness for those receiving a loan from the state. this gives discretion and flexibility and then for the waste water treatment plants this is to guard against future disasters. even before the superstorm struck many communities were struggling economically. now going through superstorm sandy that challenges are double. the commission plant serves 3 million new jersey aeons, one quarter of the population of the state. it has been -- raw sewage goes as we speak. administrative and security buildings throughout the entire plant the estimated cost to restore it the facility between 250 and $300 million. mr. chairman this is just several of those authorities. the estimates of the cost reach of the facilities is quite high. i am thankful my friend has maintained this need. as i said there is no additional money to the treasury. to the governors said veatch of the state's high ask that this is accepted of 89. >> thank you. madam chair thank you for inviting me to testify i am also recognize my co-sponsors. the amendment we offer is simple it strikes the language of the frelinghuysen amendment to make new york and new jersey eligible and replaces it to ensure they all received a major declaration receive the grants. as hurricane sandy hit members across the east coast expect the same treatment of constituents and for those with the wildfires and from when disaster struck the community we just ask for timely appropriation to begin that process. congress has affirmed when a disaster hits with in this together. but italy makes in new jersey eligible to fail to meet this standard. maryland and delaware and every state that received a declaration with the infrastructure funding to protect the water resources. i request with all states affected by hurricane sandy king get the funding. i yield back. >> our hearts cry out to the victim's of hurricane sandy. with the chairman's words urgently needed to fill the immediate need for emergency recovery. no doubt. but this budget deficit and bailout we have lost track how much money this is. it is $450 out of the budget of the household. of $450. i don't think they would be granted to any penny if they knew this was going for each emergency relief. $16 billion will quintuple the amount spent for block grants. we know what that program is such as the doggie day care and good day at the circus. the omb has warned us the program is ineffective the polite term they cannot trace funding or show effectiveness. the legal authorization expired 1984. a quintuples the amount spent. $2 billion for road repairs anywhere in the country including 20 million for highway repairs in glom and american samoa that are not even the same motion as hurricane sandy. $111 million for weather satellites. explain to me how that could be damaged by a hurricane? we may need better ones or better management that is a legitimate debate but not in real -- emergency relief measures. clyde could go one. you get the point*. the amendments that i offer with the rogers bill an frelinghuysen amendment stripped out the funding and strip out the expenditures of all emergency relief measures to get to the current fiscal year everything else is in the normal appropriations process for scrutiny with the competing demands for resources. i ask that those are point* and for consideration also is general highway repairs. >> thank you mr. mcclintock. mr. mulroney would you like to come join to get through the testimony? before everybody needs to vote. >> something to happen i thought mr. pass grove thought they had a great presentation and one of the sad parts is they could not be questioned they can and even with funding for florida beaches we had a unique situations it is not our regular order. >> i think there will be another vote. my guess they left to go vote. i can ask for them to be brought back up. league will do to avoid having a problem in the future we will have a recess to let everybody vote finley will bring them back. we would like to have the available for questions. this afternoon is very unusual if you don't mind the beginning of the third vote thank you. >> the committee is in recess until the third vote this evening. [inaudible conversations] >> now to allow us this time to get back after the vote we will go ahead to keep the panel but we will start the questions. of three of you completed testimony. >> i don't have any questions. >> i know that you are by our side. i am very grateful. i am looking forward to getting the bill passed. >>. >> maybe for the committee sake but why was there a federal limitations on state governors? i just want to help you. i a degree. there should be changes. but to address the community on the development block grant funds this is misuse we could find things with different programs but fort examples fact in holt areas that were not attended but i offer that some people use the fund. >> that could be the case but of the words of 98% are not able to be spent until next year at the areas. that is not an emergency. i remember that comment at the annapolis graduation to said oliver years in the navy she learned but we have always done it this way impedes progress. we cannot afford that with $50 billion measure now without assuring it is for an emergency. >> i have never seen any that to not have anything else. to stand alone for the appropriate fund. >> no further questions. >> we knew that you were coming back. we waited for you. does anybody have a question? the queue for each of you for taking time to be here for this hearing, your contribution and your ideas. also for reaching out to me for your constituents and i hope this produced a result you feel you can fully represent. you are excused. >> we will call up the next panel. >> if you feel free to push the glasses, we avoided a mess up to now. >> mr. garrett, your next. any prepared remarks will be inserted into the record. >> i want to say on the subject of the hurricane coming from louisiana i appreciate the human suffering that has occurred in the previous week's we want to get help to the victim's as soon as possible. with the national debt at 16.4 trillion we must carefully scrutinize every expenditure of governmengovernmen t. i had the privilege to do chaired the subcommittee for the natural resources committee. we took a close look of the frelinghuysen amendment and saw opportunities to refocus our efforts and resources. each dollar increases we ask our grandchildren to pay to have an impact. the amendment would cut nine point* 8 million from fish and wildlife service to rebuild the sea wall and buildings on uninhabited islands. we must distinguish between the mustaf and nice to have. those in question now are small groups of students during conservation class's. nine point* a million dollars being spent to rebuild a seawall on the uninhabited island occasionally used for training but only during the day. nobody spends a night cutting 42 million from installing water control equipment that were not damaged by hurricane sandy. in north carolina they were damaged hurricane irene apparently was not much of a priority but it is now. they do not seem to make that part of their request during fyi 12 it should not be a vehicle for late spending. amendment 51 cuts $3 million from fish and wildlife service to underscore those roads that even though there is $3 million allocated it is only at 650,000 it is unacceptable to say give me the money now. we will tell you later. congress has a responsibility to hold the money until it can be justified. cutting issue walleyes service in west virginia it was not damaged but seeking to upgrade the backup generators to give full power to all buildings during an outage. it is good but not in the emergency spending. we can provide that if necessary. the facility was not designed to shelter in place. inclosing a recognized the value of preventative medicine bridal send my patients to the emergency room. that is what we're doing. >> chairman i have to amendments. [inaudible] and also the amendment to mr. rogers of kentucky. both of them provide a source for funding for the money spent for disaster relief caused by hurricane sandy but to it cuts into foreign aid with the exception of israel afghanistan or pakistan to shift those moneys to instead be spent on american aid it is a substantive because the amount is of unknown for what has been spent on foreign-aid the reason i submit the pay for is of the precarious position the government sees itself. we're on a path to know where financially. then said of the fiscal cliff we have a debt mountain, a $16 trillion of total debt and ane
CSPAN
Jan 17, 2013 5:00pm EST
big that to accomplish that, you have to look at every aspect and look at health care costs, growthing -- growing faster than the economy. we have to fix the social security system making promises that are bigger than which we can pay out down the road. .. but he recognizes the threat it putouts there in the economy in that you can't possibly imagine the real growth coming without a sense of stability. the with coming from knowing what these changes will be so you could have planning investments, job creation, all the necessary pieces of moving the economy forward. the big wild card is when people are going to make these tough choices instead of using them to fight in the normal political boxes. what is going to happen next? it's on a different path than i would have thought. if you think about the prospect theory which basically says when you're delivering good news you want to do it in lots of little pieces if they got a promotion than you want to tell them they got a raise and then tell them they got a bigger office. each piece of big news is good and makes people happier. if you were doing bad use and waiting for an airline that is going to be delayed. i think it really applies to a budget deal. if we are breaking out the way that we are going to fix the budget in little pieces we have savings early on the early years ago in the continuing resolution we have savings that came out of the budget control act we talked about the sequester, not likely to hit but it's starting to look like that might be in place for a while. when the super committee failed it was put in place. we just raise tax rates on the well-off so we are doing this in pieces off. declaring victory more angry at each other than they were before and making it harder to do the remaining policies is so we know what we have left we know what we have to the health care cost which the truth is we don't know how to fix the system in its entirety. we have to keep looking at ways to control health care cost and the government programs and medicare and we are going to have to go back and do this every couple of years but we have to study what works and put more of the policies that are working in place. we have to deal with our other entitlement. it's a contentious issue in this country. it's always a political tough battle. but the longer we wait to make the changes for the people the difference of the programs there is no question about that and we have to go forward with tax reform which is great when you talk about it broadly we all know the tax code is a disaster and none of us like the tax code. when you talk about the ability to broaden the base, lower the rate and raise revenue, that is a pretty good system. it's pretty desirable to think about how to reform the tax code. but there are a lot of tough things when you talk about the specifics and the fact we need to deal with the mortgage deduction for state and local taxation then capping the discretionary you don't have to talk about a single specific policy. taxing the 1% is easy even if you are the 1% its current take more of that to fix the problem. now it's the hardest part so it's how we are going to unravel the next steps. clearly the next piece is going to have to focus on entitlement reform that's the biggest tax. we have to reaction moments coming up next months, the sequester that the extended for two months and it has broad base across-the-board spending cuts which is a wrong way to do policy. we are dealing with a tough recovery we want to phase in all these gradually and pick and choose and policy makers to pick and choose instead of say this is too hard we are going to let the cat grow in place and not do our job which is unforgivable as a way to make these policies. second, you have the debt ceiling. it is the wrong thing to hold the country hostage. it's also going to be a play we know there's could be a fight over the debt ceiling. in the past the debt ceiling reminded folks we were borrowing too much and we needed to make changes. it could be a useful reminder not if it goes as far as people really start to worry about in the u.s. government and economic damage which is what we saw last time. the third piece of the resolution the fact that government spending is going to expire and these three issues is another kind of fiscal cliff and the question is is it going to force action with the hardest pieces that are still remaining were the fact when it comes to the fiscal clef they still for all intensive purposes it's good we didn't go over the fiscal cliff, it's good we raise revenue, but we basically did what we always do in washington which is we punted all the hard choices and a sort of tried to declare a bipartisan victory. but it wasn't theirs of the question was what's going to make these next action forcing moments more effective in getting us to take on the policy and this was a part of your question that will deal with the necessary savings for the next ten years. but just as important or perhaps more the the policies in place that are going to bring savings down gradually over time in the next ten years because it is the long-term that really is a threat to this budget. if you look at any of these charts we should have brought something better than that it's the growth in spending that comes from health care and the aging of the population interest because we are borrowing too much which blows up the budget and making gradual changes now, whether it's through fixing the way we measure inflation for promising to gradually raise the retirement age down the road, these kind of small savings that compound wouldn't save so much money in the short and medium-term but an immense amount of good in bringing our long-term imbalances back into place. so the question is how you can have the political system which is not in great shape the forward-looking enough that it's willing to make a lot of changes now which will do a great amount of good down the road. and i am -- it could have been so much better than it was. i believe these changes will happen because they have to have been and we are the luckiest country in the world dealing with this because of the gift that markets can give us as a safe haven, us having to put more changes and please than any other country we don't have to do them quickly and abruptly. we can say we are going to do them and start them down the road which buys more time for an economic recovery. we would be so foolish to walk away from that opportunity to do this in an easier way waiting until the markets pushed us to which i hope and continue to believe that we wouldn't do that to ourselves and the country would make these traces in a way that they are in advance and to give some planning room but the chances are we should have to because the six waited longer than we should have and it's the next election cycle or partisanship for the public interest has already taken and economic toll on what could have been because the bottom line is not only do we have to put these kind of savings policies in place, we have to be thoughtful about how we do them and when we are talking about spending, we have to think about how we not only bring spending down, but we readjust and prioritize and the budget completely emphasizes consumption instead of assumption. we need to turn that on its head and when we talk about revenue there is no question that was an aging population you have to bring in more revenue than you have in the past but if you do that in the same outdated anti-competitive tax system if you use this opportunity and you are bold about tax reform that we need on the individual and corporate side to open up our economic system you can do this in a way that is good for the economy so we have hard choices to make and we should give ourselves the time to put the policies in place that deal with the deficit and also have a vision and the stability in what is going to happen in terms of the voting of economic growth. estimate what the peak to the cut a piece of that. the spending on health not necessarily the biggest cost of the deficit right now but if you look at 20 years, for 30 years it is the alligator that is going to swallow everything. i was on a panel last week and there was a lively argument around should we raise the age for medicare, should we try to change the system and have a fee for service, has the obama administration done a lot to lower the cost of health care going forward so we don't need to do much more? what do you think is in practical terms what needs to be done on health care if you poll people they say we all want to cut medicare celerity want to go dealing with that piece of the puzzle? >> that reminds me when i was in graduate school i went to study foreign policy and was right around the time they balanced the budget and i thought my gosh what am i going to do? so i realized the long-term problems were still there and i had to make a choice whether social security or health care and it was easy, social security is easy supply jumped into becoming a social security expert because health care is so hard. they're really is no other issue at the core of all of this. we don't know the answers and the best thing that we can do right now is putting in place as many different attempts to control health care costs and evaluating what works so we don't with a fork or not we've seen the costs coming down, and that could be in anticipation that could be temporary and permanent, so it's better data gathering the intra-asian, analyzing it and then figuring out what's working and doing more of that. one of the important things that happened in the changes that were just made or the exchanges on health care. it does give you the room to put an increase in the medicare ag wouldn't have had before. that would have been devastating to a number of people before now because of the health care exchanges it makes sense as a policy to think about increasing their retirement to become retirement age so it lines up with social security as we are living longer we know there's a huge health care cost is in the biggest one right now with the cost of aging is the biggest cost right now. and it's an incredible cost in the society as we are aging as we are and we need to find productive ways to find people who can keep in the work force longer. but the bottom line with health care is the most important area is the incentive structure and the cost sharing structure and how we set the delivery system. none of them make sense right now for just any basic perspective and we need to switch those and you can do that while protecting people who depend on the victim's and not shift the cost to people who cannot afford it but if you have a crummy incentive payment structure you are going to have a crummy system and that isn't going to fix all of it that is one of the biggest starts. >> let me turn to the president and ceo of procter and gamble. you have a very successful company and a lot of operations in the u.s. and around the world. what do you see is the most important growth promoting strategies that can be followed here? >> thank you, martin. i would like to talk about to important components that i think our important for economic growth promoting strategies to read the first which has been discussed already at some length by the panel was addressing the deficit trajectory so that the public debt doesn't crowd out our private investment to redouble require reforming the entitlement programs as talked about because of the primary drivers of the spending growth and if you don't get them under control they won't be secure for future generations so that's critically important to read the second thing and i think equally important is improving our country's global competitiveness and doing that through free and fair trade as well as a more comparative and comprehensive tax reform. the fiscal cliff is a short-term fix that has avoided us falling off the cliff and sending of the economy and the recession and it really fails to address the longer issues affecting the deficit and also the economic competitiveness of the united states and those of us that run the global companies obviously care very deeply about them. preserving the letter to nettie for comprehensive revenue neutral tax reform is a critical and very important to creating pro-growth tax law that will enable american companies to compete effectively against companies that are domicile in other countries around the world we need a level playing field. the united states has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. also the united states is one of the few countries in the world with a system that is called a global tax system rather than a territorial tax system. the 113th congress we are going to continue to advocate for comprehensive tax reform that broadens the base that reduces corporate tax rates and moves through a competitive territorial system. proctor and gamble pays income taxes and over 100 countries around the world. a business tax reform should provide a level playing field so that each business has the confidence of knowing it pays roughly the same amount of income tax as its competitors in markets with at home and abroad. in terms of deficit reduction, the obvious problem that must be addressed is the problem that currently the united states has been spending at a rate that far exceeds the rate of revenue that we are receiving. the situation often occurs during a recession as the lightning economy produces less revenue from income and payroll taxes while government spending programs continue to expand. the longer-term problem isn't related directly to the recent recession despite the unprecedented amount of the fiscal stimulus to the new government programs. for example, some economic literature suggests that when a country's debt to gdp ratio exceeds 90%, the country's long-term gdp growth rate structure slows down. this adversely affects everyone's potential standard of living. the u.s. deficit now exceeds 100 percent of the debt to gdp ratio so we already may be experiencing the initial impact of extended deficit financing. the longer term problem is to a very large extent the product of the key entitlement programs that are in a part of part of the nation's safety net for the elderly. slowing the growth of spending in the nation's in title at program can help make these programs secure for current and future workers and we think that's very important. by 2035, there will be only two workers per beneficiary and a typical 65-year-old retiree would have about a 50% longer retirement than had occurred in 1995. this is a very serious issue. currently the social security retirement is a pay-as-you-go system that provides more annual benefits than the payroll tax collectors. if left alone, this eventually will lead to insolvency particularly with the rapidly increasing number of baby boomers retire in every day as was referred to by maya and louis. there isn't time today nor do i have the proven expertise to suggest specific solutions it's important that the contras and the administration analyze acceptable methods to ensure that these programs can be available to the future retirees reforms can and must be adopted the don't undermine how the benefits or obviously they won't be accepted to read the benefits must be preserved for the names of americans who are now participating in the work force. we have an easier chance of getting it done. in terms of innovation, innovation has been the core to procter and gamble success over 175 years of doing business. we spend about $2.5 billion a year on research and development that's 40% more than the largest competitor. we spend about $400 million a year on consumer research trying to understand the articulate it consumer needs that we can design products to solve. innovation was our lifeblood for touching and improving the lives and innovation as what presents the categories and helps reduce cost and it's what helps us deliver products that are affordable for consumers around the world come and we serve over 4 billion consumers every single day. for decades our country has demonstrated the capability to innovate consistently reliably and successfully. we have a robust multi-year innovation program on our core business and we've increased our focus on discontinuous innovation, things of holding a categories, having been bothered before such as when we introduced swiffer as a way to quickly clean your floors or blind or think of it as a tripod or a single use laundry detergent that can be put right in the middle that is a concentrated form of laundry detergent made available today. we transfer our innovative ideas around the world and that leads to growth around the world. for example, the technology that we have invented is an expanding around the world, and that is leading to jobs overseas because the plants have to be near the consumers trying to serve. we can't export to the disposable diaper from pennsylvania to china and make money on it so we have 150 factories around the world. but nevertheless, that the business that we do internationally results in jobs in the united states. 20% of our jobs in the united states rely on an international business. 40% in the state of ohio our home state relies on international business. so that international business and being globally competitive is incredibly important to their growth of our company and to the growth of the economy and the allied states. we have the world's best company in the united states but right now we are putting them at a disadvantage with our tax policy, with our fiscal policy and with many of the things i've already talked about. >> thank you. >> i agree with you strongly that we have to do a tax reform and we can't have taxes that make our companies competitive. i agree that we have to reform entitlements and bring down the cost of entitlements. but as a leader in the business community, you have a bit of a problem, don't you? i would like you to say is that a little bit how does the business community for and its message to be part of the debate about what to do? >> i think any american that knew that we had the highest corporate tax rate in the world second to none would agree that is probably not a good idea, particularly since the american people are the workers in the company's. it gets back to global competitiveness, having the highest corporate tax rate in the world isn't a globally competitive. having a worldwide system that prohibits u.s. based multinationals, and we have the best ones moving money from one country to the other or even moving it back to the united states to make an investment here having to pay double taxation. we want our american companies to have a level playing field with the companies they compete with. i was in china not long ago in the u.s.-china business council and the government of china was asking for help to help them understand how to create globally competitive companies and they were asking american companies, american ceos to help them create globally competitive companies. i think we need to reform our system to allow our companies to be competitive before international companies who have advantages given to them by their government and by their systems become fierce competitors. >> i'm in a project on financial resolution regulation and we are looking at doing to change the of architecture with different regulators and i was told of the chinese are in the process of setting up their regulatory system and they come to the united states and say should we do with the same way as you do it and i think we said no, maybe not. part of an investment company but you see is the significance of this fiscal debate for innovation in the u.s. and the economic performance in the u.s.? >> i agree with what has already been said and this whole fiscal issue is centered around the competitiveness of american business and american companies and american production in the global economy because we can't go back ten years or 20 years and hope one way or another through trade protection or other means we will insulate or protect our businesses or workers from winning. so the only path to america when economically that is we create a regulatory environment, tax environment, and competitive regime here in this country that actually allows our businesses and workers to win in that global wheat competitive game at the moment. we have some extraordinary assets in this country. we have a highly educated and motivated work force that in many respects outperforms, not out educated about from a point of view workers in virtually every effort country. we have the most efficient capital markets in the world. our companies have the lowest cost of capital of any companies anywhere around the globe. we have a spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation and capitalist system and commitment to a capitalist system that is the envy of virtually every other country in the world, and we also have increasingly as elude it to in the earlier panel have always had a very strong natural resources, but with shale oil and gas and the incredible strength of our agricultural industry we have a great natural resources as well so there's a lot to be bullish about in this country in terms of our economic opportunities, but this fiscal deficit, our fiscal policy is an enormous cloud on us reaching that potential and i work on the investment banking industry i used to be in the money-management industry. there is a phrase that sometimes gets applied to companies and you say about the company, good company, but bad capital structure and may be bad management as well. that was used to describe a company that had a great products, highly motivated work force, was winning in the eyes of the consumer or whoever the purchasers of the products work, but they may be had to much debt or they have a management team or structure that didn't take the stand of the enormous opportunities that they had in front of them. i think that we are perilously close in this country today to the phrase to take great country but with a great balance sheet and a bad managerial structure. that is the core of the fiscal issue that we face in this country today. why is that a concern? because if we do not address this, we will not be effectively prevented just like an over leveraged company for making the investments in infrastructure, education that are the key to us winning ten years from now, 20 years from now, for 30 years from now and which ultimately are critical to sustain and a high level of growth and a high level of line at in this country and we will do a second thing which is in some respects more venal we will saddle our children and grandchildren with the responsibility for paying off or for paying down the debt that we incurred because we wanted a level of government but we were not prepared to pay for it in that level of government so it really critically important thing and i think as maya and bob said the answer as well. i haven't met a single democrat, republican, even socialist. we have a couple of them in the congress as well or independent who doesn't have a pretty clear idea of how this should -- with the answer is and it's very frustrating for i think many of us who don't spend a lot of our time in washington that we are not getting to the point that it's so clearly we need to get because we don't get this behind us there are three massively important issues to address in our competitiveness. corporate tax reform, individual tax reform and entitlement reform and if we don't get a big start at addressing our fiscal issues we are going to miss an enormous opportunity to address all of those. let me close with one comment referred to the importance of confidence and growth and investing you've run a business like bob does and you have the uncertainty of the fiscal cliff it makes you a little bit more cautious about hiring people because if we do go into a weaker economy to can have intense pressure on your earnings to reverse of this issue of confidence in the governance structure and the ability of washington to address these critically important issues is pretty fundamental to the success of the real economy it gets reflected quickly in the cattle markets resolve than july 20 love and the sloppy job here in washington has pretty profound effect on the performance of the real economy, and i must say i look at some of the discussion around the debt ceiling discussion and i lose view that this is the height of irresponsibility that we are sitting here discussing where the united states should be felt on debt that has been occurred as a result of spending approved by both bodies of congress and signed by the president of the united states. 545 members of congress i assure you that not a single one of them if they were confronted with a credit card bill that they didn't like what simply say i'm not going to pay that because i know the implications for their credit rating and the access to future bank loans would be affected for ten, 15, 20 years and so it is kind of appalling that we are sitting here discussing whether we would do that with this country that we are so all incredibly proud >> let me in my last question try to be a little bit provocative here. folks like alan come and nobel prize-winning economist and bottom blanking, paul krugman who's identified on the left but is quite influential. they say we have to get this economy going again if we can get the growth we need demand, we need to do something with our infrastructure, we need to spend more on infrastructure. we worry about the deficit for the next two or three years is a mistake and business would respond if we could get that going again. so what do you say in response to that? >> i would say like many things i don't agree with there is a kernel of truth. i think the answer is i've cited a number of times what we need is three b's. it needs to be big which means 4 trillion or more, it needs to be balanced with the of revenues and 2.8 to $3 trillion of expense reductions and the third thing is backend loaded which is sensitive to the fact that we are still performing well below potential and we need to make some investments to stimulate our competitiveness. it's embarrassing as a country that we are somewhere in the 20's and educational achievement, is embarrassing the degree to read their infrastructure and training systems are better than ours. there is no road to a competitive successful united states tend to 15, 20, 30 years from now that does not strongly address the deficit issue that we have. >> i shortchanged the audience a little bit but let me try to eliminate that by taking one or two questions from the audience. can we get a microphone, can you identify yourself, please. >> a couple comments and questions come in business strategy follows your budget and getting the strategy right and getting the budget the second thing is a question about alignment and the question is there any combination of structures that make it so if you don't have a budget and you don't have approved deficit level we don't pay congress or the president. it's pay for performance. so i would be interested in your comments on that. >> anyone want to tackle that intriguing thought? >> i will jump in on the first one because it's so important. when you think about what we need to do, and we use 4 trillion on something of a stabilize the debt and put it on a downward path and that is really hard to do. but it isn't sufficient to fix the problem and i think that you have heard that through this whole panel and you hear it whenever you hear the policy people talking about it's not enough to get the fiscal situation under control you also need to write the fiscal policies or the right to budgetary policy, and it's kind of astounding in this country to start with the fact we don't have a budget the way the government operates without putting a budget in place is beyond any of us. but the fact that we also don't use it as the opportunity to take our national priorities. what are the most important things for the country to do ha. should government do them, should be at the federal level, the state level? these are things you do in public policy schools and then you come out and that isn't how it works at all you don't go through this exercise of national priorities figuring out how to do them and saying they are important enough to do, you pay for them. you need to pick priorities that have long-term goals and competitiveness among other values that are leading them and then you need to pay for that because it is absolutely unacceptable to fix spending policies that don't even achieve those goals and then hand that bill off to the kids and keep trying to explain to my kids to make it interesting that you can't explain it in any way that makes it acceptable. quickly to your second point, you know, it is obviously a gimmick but it feels like this is we have such frustration and particularly those of you that have run companies have such frustration that we have hired a group of people to come to washington and the amount of energy that goes on dhaka to teams beating each other up instead of solving a problem that no matter how much we might disagree on the role and the way to solve it, we know it has to be solved it just seems completely unacceptable so there's sort of those moments where you need the no budget gimmicks if nothing else just to focus attention on we have to work on this until we get it done. estimate i kind of like this idea, lower the base pay and get a bonus that depends upon the performance. that's kind of attractive. yes? >> i write the mitchell report and i want to follow on that with another thought. ross captured when he said a good country, bad management, that governments. it seems to me that if there is any lesson that we get from this panel and other discussions there is a way to fix the balance sheet. it isn't clear that there isn't a way to fix government. in the first panel, the mayor talked about moving it at the speed of business. so there's a question for mr. macdonald. in an earlier life i competed directly against your company in the advertising business in a category that at that time we were pretty successful. one of the things i learned it occurred to me that if arguably the most successful consumer product company can direct its product managers to put their annual market plans in three pages that we might be able to take some of that magic instead of having a 2,000 page health care bill or other bills of that land that nobody reads there is a place where the business community might be able to have some influence on this third problem that we talked about it is bad management and bad governance. it's been a guiding you raise a very interesting point. we spend a lot of time training our new hires thinking up front so they can have those on page to page 43 page memos to i'm asking maya what she learned in school about creating a policy because i almost think that there is some pride taken in the laundry and the more complex the better, i don't know. but certainly the longer the more complex because if you can deal with principle that could be shorter to get you don't have to think that every execution all detail, and i think kind of what we miss because as was suggested, we don't have a strategy and the budget isn't following the strategy. we are dealing with execution rather than with principle. so, i agree with your point very much. >> kristopher all i think attention to the quality of management, the training and development of public managers especially people who devote a large part of their career to public service i think is an important subject. i think somebody may be familiar with the department of public service to that cause but it's essentially the only organization i know of that is. we have many talented career public servants in this government. we happen to have had in this administration both the first treasury secretary and the nominee to be the second both of whom have essentially spent with brief interruptions their entire career in public service and match up with the best public servants i think you find anywhere around the world in their field, and i would say the same thing about the current deputy secretary of state completing 30 years in public service as one of i think only a couple career form service officers to rise to the rank of deputy secretary. but we need to put more energy and resources into the development of those public sector carriers. i think the other point which is more troubling is -- and there has been a lot of commentary and we have to recognize there has been changes in the political demographics partly as a result of the district and partly as a result of changes in the country that has pushed more reflective of legislators to words the extreme ends. the challenge coming to them because more and more districts are essentially single party districts and so the political threat to an incumbent comes on their right or right depending on the party, and that creates a foundation for the kind of intense partisanship and division that we see to it technology, money and politics, all of that adds to its. my first job after graduate school was on the senate staff and a national campaign that came out of it in 1967, 68, and the first thing for robert kennedy the first thing senator kennedy said to me the first day i started in may of 1967 as the junior member of the legislative staff she was hardly someone that had grown up or was devoted to its internal process. but the first thing he said to me was he was going to set up a series of meetings with some people whom he disagreed about a lot of subjects but who knew and loved the senate and its process and so for that first couple of weeks, i got to spend time on the democratic side with senator long and senator russell on the republican side with senator dirksen and java. that kind of experience doesn't happen very much anymore and it is an anecdotal indication of the change. somehow we need more people, more forms wear those kind of issues that affect the political process were discussed as well as a substantive issue. >> at the back we have to line up. i am a communications and marketing consultant, and the name of this panel was deficit reform resulting uncertainty and promoting innovation and i have heard a lot of discussion of resolving uncertainty over what the government's responsibility is and what the conagra's should be doing and what the president should be doing, but i haven't heard very much about what the business should be doing we will let bald go first he has a much bigger company. >> i try to john about that but i couldn't agree with you more. the innovation is in many ways the solution to the many of our problems there's a wonderful book written by a man called irrational optimist. the man as british and in the book he talks about innovation really solving the majority of the world's problems, what has gotten us here today and reminds us that back in the mid 1800's those people that lived in the u.k. at that time thought that we were all going to die under horse manure and of course that didn't happen because the invention of the automobile, and the invention of the automobile brought other problems, but i do think innovation is the solution, and it's why we have spent so much money trying to improve people's lives through innovation. the way to get that done is by having the best schools, by having competitive schools we have to have competitive education. most of our international partners are educated in the united states. some of them would like to stay here but unfortunately when they graduate they can't get them to stay and they have to go back. so, education and the infrastructure is certainly one thing and i will stop there so the other panelists can comment. >> i can't agree with what he said in the gist of your question at the end of the day as i said a little earlier for america to achieve what it is capable of achieving from an economic point of view it is fundamentally dependent upon our ability to continue to innovate and create and intent, and i think we want a governmental system i believe we should all want that, that effectively allows business to do that because ultimately that is how we will create jobs and more economic output here in the united states, but it does that in a way that is respectful of the populist as a whole, so we do need a the environmental protections, we do need the safety protections, we do need the licensing approval of drugs because none of us individually are capable of ascertaining the safety and soundness of those individual products. but having said that, we plan as a country if we are using the government to play the role as a protector of those things that expertise is required, but we then allow a more unfettered investment of our people and in our innovations to win. if you look at the industries where the united states is winning globally, they are almost all industries where technological wordbook sensitivity to consumers deeply researched consumer needs i would say our financial industry is an industry where, you know, we are winning globally, and i agree generally before comment about the regulatory environment, but i think we have to look at that also to make sure that we are not rendering an industry that we are winning around the world today and if to be less competitive. >> i was sort of thinking about all the questions that came up and the comparisons about the business and public sector and what we could be learning from the author. degette in the public sector health, back to the first point we don't start with sort of what your objective is and these are the things you would do if you are learning a business how you are going to efficiently achieve it building and operation if you look at how the government is organized it doesn't make sense in ways that becomes compartmentalized and so many issues to be problem-solving. so, the observations that you use to achieve those goals and then the evaluation, we never spent any time to giving out what works and what doesn't and then funneling back into changing things or redirecting our resources but you don't want to overstate the comparison because there is a bottom line in the business and the result is another bottomline in government and it isn't though you can run in some way and the public interest on rival things the public sector can't do in many ways, so i think there are so many useful lessons about how we can improve the government but you also don't want to overstate them. but this innovation problem is so true as well and the same broken system and government that is keeping us from solving problems that we know are there, and i always come back into partisanship, the fact the two sides would rather beat each other up and come up with the answers i think is addressing the innovation and the government which is there are public sector problems which we need to salt, and if we are able to find a way to be more and to the real and innovative in the government which again is a lot of what you do any think-tank but to have that work in the political system and to have more partnerships in the private sector in solving those problems this country would be moving forward so much farther and so much faster. i will come back to where i started which is the fiscal problem seems to me like it is gunning of the wheels of everything and there is no reason it's not okay to disagree on what the priorities are, but if we are breaking our system that allows the government to financially function at all, we will not get to any of those discussions and shame on us if we end up not being who we are for the next tremendous decades and choose not to make the traces that allow us to go forward with those. >> i think the claims about the value of investing in the innovation and the time management to that, nothing is important than the leaders in the global business community and because of the priority to the city coming directly out of the financial crisis reestablished innovation centers countered after the kind of lab that some technology companies had. one and palo alto and one in singapore for an extraordinary value and the ever listen for the time i've spent in and around the business world is that every investment you make in town at every level of the town chain, every aspect of the management is about the best thing you can do with that amount of resources. >> you made a great segued that goes to the last panel which is you talk about the innovation and the government and improving the government performance, and that is exactly what we are going to talk about with phil leadership after lunch. and so, we look forward to that panel i'm a believer that you can get the efficiency gains. this is the nature of the panel. my thanks to everybody on the panel. [applause] we will see you later. [inaudible conversations] he taught devotee for years, the american dream, and then it becomes his dream and he had been in detroit just a few months before and he talked about i have a dream that america will someday realize these principles in the declaration of independence. so he was just inspired by that moment. why did you write a book about your experience? >> it was an important part of what history. i felt that the fdic perspective should be brought to bear. there's been some other accounts of the crisis that were not completely accurate so i thought it was important for the historical record to present the perspective and also currently for people to understand there were different policy traces of a different policy options and disagreements and that if we want to prevent the crisis, the crisis from happening again i felt the public itself needed to engage more in the financial reform there could be the interest and educate themselves better for the elected officials so i try hard to make the book accessible and i have policy recommendations i hope people will look at and take seriously. house democrats yesterday held a hearing on reducing gun violence. the superintendent from connecticut gave a detailed account of the sandy hook shooting last month. also testifying, philadelphia mayor michael nutter, the mother of the victim of the arizonan shooting two years ago and police chief from minnesota. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you very much for joining us on this very solemn and important occasion for the american people. just over a month ago our nation was shocked and horrified by the news of the shooting at sandy hook elementary school in newtown connecticut. 20 children and six educators were taken from us at gunpoint. an act of senseless incomprehensible violence struck at the heart of our families and schools and communities across the country. earlier this month, shortly after newtown, all members of congress to get both to protect and defend the constitution and the american people. to protect and defend, that is our first responsibility to read today leaders of the house democratic caucus have come together to fulfill that duty to confront the challenge of some violence in our society to enact and insure the safety and security of our communities. under the leadership of congress man thompson, mike thompson, our gun violence prevention task force keeps growing in numbers. our colleagues are submitting recommendations for legislation, the task force is working with outside organizations and sharing the latest information on gun violence and the steps that we can take and must take to ended. today to strengthen efforts of this task force and our democratic caucus, we will hear from americans with personal and professional experiences with gun violence. and with critical expertise on how and why we must protect it. we thank them for sharing their grief to help other people be safe, to sharing their experiences to help us all honor our oath of office. our witnesses hill from every walk of life as education, academia, law enforcement and public service today we are extraordinarily grateful to have with us dr. janet robinson, superintendent of schools of newtown, connecticut. dr. emily, the mother of gabe zimmerman who was a victim in tucson nearly two years ago. scott night from the police department here in minnesota to give a view for middle america in the rural areas, and then michael nutter who has been a leader on this issue for a very long time. your voice as and your contributions are playing a critical role in our effort to take these long overdue actions. we look forward to hearing your ideas and testimonies and answering the call to action on gun violence prevention. .. >> we must address issues of mental health and keep weapons out of the hands in danger of doing harm to themselves or others. these commonsense proposals among others represent steps we can take and must take right away to stop the violence. as the president said today, this time must be different. we agree that we cannot permit anyone times go by without action and we over to the family and the victims of newtown, connecticut, aurora, colorado, virginia tech, the list goes on and on and on everyday. we have shootings -- too many of them across america. i am very pleased during the meeting to the cochair of our policy committee, congresswoman rosa delauro and congresswoman rob andrews. we have congressman johnson on your this well and the prevention tax force or violence. also mike thompson, thank you for your leadership. we are also joined by steny hoyer. with that, we will go to our cochairs. >> i think you very much, madam leader. chairman injuries, to everyone for scheduling this critical and very timely hearing. as the president indicated, there has been assigning of executive orders by the president and we all feel the urgency of responding to the dangers that are communities confront. with the distribution of guns and large capacity magazines and with the status of our mental health observations who ought not to have guns and make sure that we know who is getting weapons and bringing danger to our community. i appreciate the witnesses and i welcome them and it is obviously an extraordinarily timely hearing. the witnesses and the attendance in the media of the public. thank you for being here. thank you, madam leader. >> thank you very much, madam leader. it is a privilege for me to welcome all of you, and i want to say thank you to the leader for calling this hearing. i am also pleased to join rob andrews cochair of the policy committee and my other colleagues here today. i want to say thank you to the panel for taking time to join with us. in fact, it is such a distinguished panel and let me just for a moment personally thank and acknowledge all of you. i have to say welcome to our visitor from connecticut, superintendent janet robinson of newtown, connecticut. i know that she had been working with families and children and teachers and first responders and an unbelievable organization in new haven along with ways to help people work through this tragedy with the students and teachers. i look forward to hearing her testimony. school should be a place where children are safe to learn and to grow. the incomprehensible actions of a young man suddenly devastated a small-town community. six adults, 20 innocent children. all of them between six and seven years old were murdered in cold blood. we have seen similar acts of terror in oakland and tucson and virginia tech, all across our country. we see the loss of life everyday all across this nation. after the unthinkable in newtown, president obama spoke about if we are doing enough to protect our children. the answer, he admitted, is no. that must change. that is why we are here today. we will hear from people who deal with the effects of gun violence every day. a wide range of experience and expertise when we will facilitate a discussion on it, then step the we must take to ensure that these tragedies will never happen again. i have a letter from the teachers of newtown, which i will enter into the record. but i will share one sentence. it says in our schools we need to strike the right balance to ensure that schools are nurturing while also say. safe. and we need to strike the right balance what the schools do not become in a place where they cannot be kids. we need to find and maintain this balance between safety and learning. as we move forward during this difficult time, collaboration, communication, value and the voice of experience of all the members of teachers and educators and law enforcement officials, the affected families will be essential to making our schools and streets safer and stronger and more united. that is why we are here today, to prevent another sandy hook incident. we all need to work together to end violence. i hope we can continue that pilots today -- to end that pilots today. i think you'll. >> i would like to thank my leader and coach are in cali. we come to this room today from many different races places and backgrounds. the last few months we have seen too many of our fellow countryman gunned down. i represent canham, new jersey. we have seen our neighbors die in shopping malls and movie theaters. college campuses and horrifically, 31 days ago, an elementary school. we are bonded together in this room today by one common conviction. that is our belief that this is not inevitable. we can make choices to make this stop in the future. we believe that with good consistent practice, we can improve our mental health system is done so that people who are demonized and tortured can get help. we believe that consistently good law enforcement practices, we can make our schools and our campuses in a public place is safe in a responsible way. yes, we believe that consistent with the second amendment to the constitution of the united states and consistent with a common sense of the american people, that we can pass a law that makes it so that no one can own a gun that can fire 30 bullets and 30 seconds. we look forward to the perspective of the witnesses on these pressing questions. now that we are going to hear from the ranking member and are judiciary member, mr. conyers. >> it is important that we recognize that the vice president united states, the president, our leader, nancy pelosi here in the congress, and all of the members assembled here are committed to deal for the very first time this horrible gun violence that is going on and deal with it in a meaningful way. so i think all of the witnesses for being here. i join with all my colleagues in the very importance of this matter. what is important is addressing the mental health crisis in our country are you in which so many people suffer from some form of a mental problem. i applaud you all for being here, and i look forward to this very important call to action. >> thank you, mr. conyers. i would now like to introduce the chair of the task force. mike thompson of california. >> thank you very much, madam chair. leader nancy pelosi, thank you for organizing today's hearing. and thank you to the witnesses who came to share expertise with us and your experiences with us. as a gun owner, i believe that we should protect the second amendment rights. as a father and a grandfather, i also believe that we have a very important responsibility to make sure that our schools and our streets and our communities are safe. i know that we can do both. one thing is very clear. now is the time for action. there is too much gun violence. there is no set of laws that will end the horrific shootings and senseless acts of violence. but that is no excuse for sitting around and doing nothing. the time is now. as the chair of the gun violence prevention task force, i am working on a comprehensive report which reduces gun violence. republicans, democrats, gun rights groups, mental health experts, educational leaders, people from the video game and movie industry, hunting and sportsmen groups, law enforcement leaders and the vice president of the united states of america, and with my constituents. this is a complex issue and in order to make progress, it's going to take a complex solution. but every idea needs to be on the table and everyone needs to be at that table in order for us to be successful. we can make our communities safer. >> thank you, sir. >> next we are going to hear from representative carolyn mccarthy from new york. >> thank you. i think everyone for bringing here their experiences and for being here today. i have been working on this issue for 18 years now. everybody thinks that this closure for victims, but it never goes away. every time there is a shooting, each and every one of us go through that moment when the tragedy happened to our family. my husband died, my son was severely injured and left paralyzed. it was during that time that he was learning how to speak again and he asked me why. and i didn't have the answer. i'm saying this because people like us went through this tragedy and we are the ones that wanted to do the best that we can to make sure that no other family goes through what we have already gone through. many have our he experienced that. i would say to so many of the victims out there, there are times when we lose faith and there are times when we want to give up. all i can say is that we cannot give up. the shootings have only gotten worse, and there are things that we could've done so many years ago. things that could have prevented these killings. not only the mass killings, it's also the shootings that happened every single day. since what happened in connecticut with those children and their teachers, 900 people have died. 900 people have died from gun violence. i keep count. i do keep count. because it is going to be up to all of us to try to talk to some of our members on both sides of the aisle that we, as americans, will stand with them if they stand with us in trying to reduce gun violence. we do not have to be afraid of the radical nra. i say that because there are many gun owners in this country that are good citizens. there are very big atrocities are happening. we are here to do the right thing. this will begin another losing battle. we cannot afford to lose another battle. we have common sense issues to stop gun violence, holistically and when it comes down to it, the assault weapons are made to our police officers and our military and they have no right to be on the street. and they do not. we know that we can't save every single life. i was a nurse for many years before i came here in the best of the best couldn't save every single life. that doesn't mean that we couldn't try to do as much as we could save those lives. there are people who really care about this issue and who have been fighting this issue for longer than me. victims that i haven't seen in 10 or 15 years. victims still out there fighting. this time it is different. it has to stop. we are americans we are all better than that. and we cannot allow a group, a small minority of this country to stop us from doing the right thing. thank you. >> i would like to now introduce our first witness, who is congressman elizabeth etsy and she resides in the sandy hook elementary school area. we will have all of the various members introduce the witnesses. then we will proceed with the testimony. >> thank you so much for is a call to action us what is what we must do as a country. i am honored to have janet robinson here with us. she responded in a timely fashion is a vice. throughout her career, she has shown a constant ongoing commitment to education and improving the lives of children. in addition to having served as superintendent of schools in three different mendicant communities, janet has served as a teacher in a school counselor and a school psychologist. i met janet on the afternoon of the shooting area janet was grieving and she was there with parents of children who did not know if their children were going to come home. as we know, 20 children did not. the next morning, this great woman sat around a conference table with the board of education in her community and begin planning how to protect those children and their families and how to reopen the school and get children back to learning. she is an extraordinary person and was putting sandy hook community first, the teachers, the children, and their family, and thinking about it. her friends will cut down on that terrible day. janet, i know that you will provide invaluable expertise to us in today's hearings. you are an expert on children and teaching and most importantly, and for all purposes today, you are an expert on the price of inaction. you are an expert, because newtown, connecticut, has paid this price. your children have paid the price. the teachers paid the price and the administrators paid the price, as well as the community paid the price. you speak with unquestionable authority on a subject and you have lived what has happened when we, as political leaders, do not act. you can speak through us here today on who these people were, tell us about the extraordinary principle and leader of the school. these incredible children in these incredible leaders of the community. what we need to do is hear from you about how to prevent tragedy and how to ensure that no other community endures what newtown, connecticut has gone through. what happened now, we could not prevent what happened then. but we can go forward. this is about what happens now. i want to thank you for your extraordinary leadership encouraged in your community and in coming here today. thank you so very much. >> our next introducer is someone who bears both a physical and emotional scars of this issue. he stood by the sight of our colleague, gabby giffords, on the day of the horrific event in arizona. he has stood by her ever since and now he occupies receipt. congressman ron barber of arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman and madam leader for bringing us together to hear from the panel. also to reflect on what we as a nation can do to prevent any kind of recurrence. it is my honor to introduce emily nottingham. she is from tucson, arizona. emily and i have known each other for a long time even before i knew her son. she worked for 40 years in the city of tucson, arizona, as an administrator or community housing and social services and held that position until not that long ago. beyond that, she is active in many community organizations and i'm very proud to say that she is one of the first people to join the advisory board to establish understanding, shortly after the shooting in tucson. she is also an outdoors person, as well as her son, and is on the board of the arizona trail association and many other nonprofits. she is also the proud mother of two young men, dan and dave zimmerman. gabe is my transition buddy. he was a friend and we had a place where we put together the office of congressman gifford staff early on. he is a wonderful young man with such compassion and care. it is beyond words to think that he is no longer with us. his mother served for many years people who were disadvantaged in our community. it was gabe who was killed at that event on january 8. he died right beside me after being shot myself. i will never, ever forget the image of gabe dying by my side. i know for certain that his last action was to come and try to help us. to help congresswoman giffords and in doing that, he was shot. some of us here in congress meet regularly in the room that is named in his honor. every time i go to meetings, i remember this young man. his mother has been very active. particularly active since the tragedy in tucson. there was a magazine in a clip that 33 bullets. i know that we need to do something about it, and i know that emily wants to do something as well. we want to welcome emily nottingham to hear her testimony this afternoon. >> we will now hear from our colleague, keith ellison or it. >> thank you, madam chair and madam leader on behalf, my colleague, eddie mccollough minaya, we are privileged to introduce scott knight, who is the chief of staff in minnesota. but i would be very remiss if i did not mention that the mayor of the city of minneapolis is here with us. also, an individual who tragically lost her father not more than a few months ago. her name is my art. thank you all for being here. the police chief has been achieved since 2000. it is located a short distance between the twin cities. he has served on the firearms committee from 2000 until 2012. law enforcement is a key constituency if we are going to bring this state of gun violence under control. he has fought against illegal gun trade and in 2010, he joined nine other major law enforcement organizations to form the national law enforcement partnership to prevent gun violence. chief knight was chairman during the first year. in 2008, chief knight received the minnesota chief of police president association award and for his work on gun violence and officer safety issues as well and he has testified before congress before and is an expert in this area and we are very pleased to greet you here today. thank you. >> our final introducer is my friend from philadelphia, congressman chaka fatta. he met thank you, mr. chairman. we are about to celebrate the life and legacy of doctor martin luther king. we are reminded where he was shot down at the lorraine motel, whether it's president reagan or president kennedy who were both shot as well, to that were fatal in one that was almost, we are reminded all the time. the supreme court ruled that everyone has a right to bear arms. but you can also bring them into the supreme court. so because we actually know that guns are dangerous, as much as people may proclaim one thing, you have to look at the actions. on the florida house, we saw members shot down and that is why we have bulletproof vests and other kinds of protections. the mayor is someone who has grown up in west philadelphia, the best place in the world to go up. as a former councilman and a second term mayor of our city, in so many respects we have worked together on gun buyback programs and we have gone through police officers being killed, young children in the city -- as much as we may think about famous people that have been shot, there are literally dozens of children -- over 50 children per day shot every day in our country. and mayor, we thank you for your great work. there is so much more that could be said. but it's much more important that we hear from the witnesses. i would like to welcome my friend and the leader of the united states conference of mayors here today. we await his testimony. >> thank you. >> we are honored by each of your presences, and we would like to begin with doctor janet robinson, a woman of incredible character and courage. >> thank you very much. i am here to give a face to the children and the staff and the families of sandy hook elementary and the community of newtown, connecticut. nearly 500 elementary children filed in the school with the expectation of all little children, that good things will be happening today. little in the way upstairs -- maybe, what is for lunch today? will i have a chance to play with my friends at recess? in the first three classrooms in the front hall, the little first graders coats were hung up and their morning routine began with several time on the rug with their teacher. there they discussed the calendar, the activities of the day, along with inactivity in the classroom. this is a typical routine of sandy hook elementary school. a place that exuded caring, happiness, nurturing, from the moment you walk through the doors. when you enter the halls, you'll get a smile and cheerful greeting. the children's work is posted in the halls, so that you know what that you are in a special place immediately. sandy hook elementary school seemed like the safest place on earth and its quiet little suburban community. the school has been known for the superb education that students receive for over 50 years. and has been acknowledged as a vanguard school. not only has it been a high achieving school, but it's tradition about caring about the whole child is well known and part of that tradition. the school is an important piece of this community. that morning was like every other morning. after all, routines are comforting for kids. until about 9:30 a.m., when a troubled young man came in with an assault rifle and shot off the glass windows to bypass the buzzer to be let inside. he quickly changed lives of so many people. he went by the office where only one secretary was working, and she went under her desk, driving the phone with her. fortunately, he didn't check. then he went back out in the hall where he was confronted by the principle, dawn hochsprung from the lead teacher, natalie hammond and the school psychologist, mary sherlock, who emerged from a meeting in a conference room. i can just picture dawn hochsprung enter a nation that someone would bear in her school and put her babies at risk. it would be so like her to be the protective mother hen and never think of her own safety. i can vision her time to take charge and protect her children. that was how they rushed towards the attacker. dawn hochsprung and natalie blosser lies. then the shooter killed a substitute teacher. all but one child who is clever enough to play dead. then he took aim on the desoto, who was so excited to reach her dream to be a teacher, such incredible bravery who died trying to shield her students. as with the case of the school's behavioral therapist. none of these brave women were trained in combat. they were elementary school educators dedicated to educating their young children. their first response when confronted by this terror was to protect their children. they arrived in three minutes. the ems and innumerable lives. the police helped this helpless school in the face of this shooting. twenty beautiful innocent little first graders were lost that day in a senseless act. they were no match for a troubled person with nar -- ar-15 assault rifle. the scene became unbelievable as parents came crying and running and looking for their children. it was horrible as we realize we suddenly didn't have enough children adding up. i then realized the magnitude of this situation. six adults were lost, including the principal, dawn hochsprung, who took over the leadership of any hook elementary six years ago. her passionate work was immediately evident. she had a vast knowledge and culture already effective teachers to strive for excellence and she truly enjoyed being an elementary principle, enjoying all of the fun of an elementary school. whatever day the school was celebrating, she was all in. she might show up at a district meeting in pajamas and slippers or a fairy princess. yes, she was serious about ensuring that every child had a highly effective teacher. along with her colleagues lost that day, she represented a huge loss in the futures of those children they would have impacted in their professional lives. as a community, we are struggling to pick up the pieces and determine what the new normal look and feel like. our sense of security has been shattered. innocent children and the people who teach them have been gunned down. everyone has been changed. some families have a whole left behind by a six-year-old that should be doing all the things a six-year-old should do. families are still suffering from the nightmares of sounds and strangers. children who are even fearful in their own classrooms. who knows what the long-term impact will be for those children who had the innocence of childhood chatter. what do i say to the parents who want to be assured that when they put their children on the bus to school, they will come home. how do i protect our children without creating fortresses? how we let our children really enjoy being children? i have heard that the measure of a society is how they treat their children. so help me give these children their futures. i would like to share with you a fourth-grade student that sent congressmen closely a letter. her name is a vet, and she said i am a fourth-grade student in connecticut. after the shooting in my town, i started a petition online asking for help to change the come ons. it's got a lot of support from america, because then i had to take it down because the police were worried about my safety. what we want is for you to ban semi automatic weapons. this is important so that many people cannot shoot many at once or injure people badly. they put lives at risk. this will help prevent individuals and families and communities from suffering the way that we are now in tremont. there are hundreds of cards and pictures from all over america. it is so sad and i think that people should walk through the long hallway and read one card out of every box. we would appreciate everything that you can do to help, sincerely, ava s. >> here is a picture of the thousands of cards and letters that are gathered in the hall. it just shows the support and the feeling among the people in this country. thank you for doing what you're doing here. [applause] >> doctor robinson, that deeply wounded community is so fortunate to have a person of your strength and character to die. we are think of you are here with us today and moved by what you said matt thank you. >> the mayor of philadelphia, is there anyone you would like to acknowledge? we have the mayor of new jersey this year. we welcome you. [applause] >> and if there are others, we want to welcome them as well. >> we want to welcome all the members and let me just first say that you make me very proud. very proud of the opportunity to be with you and more importantly, do you have taken the time to try to address this issue and these issues. i am michael a. nutter, mayor of the city of philadelphia and we are joined by a number of -- >> [microphone malfuction] >> we are joined today by a number of members. when i saw earlier, we had a number of us who are also members of the organization. members against illegal guns, which is providing tremendous leadership by mayor bloomberg. to all the measures that are here, we thank you for your leadership. i am honored to appear before you on behalf of mayors to discuss our views of what we must do to reduce gun violence and to make our cities and towns and streets and schools in our theaters in our places abortion safer places for all of our people. again, and again, and again, americans have been stunned by senseless violence and acts of violence involving guns. december 14, 2012, tragedy targeting young children in newtown, it remains incomprehensible. too many times during the last year, mayors have expressed shock at mass shootings. even more frequently, many of us must cope with gun violence that occurs on the streets of our cities every day. the u.s. conference of mayors has been calling for sensible gun laws to protect the public for more than or years. mayors and police chiefs from towns and cities of all sizes have worked together in this effort for decades. we have done is because of the tremendous toll the gun violence takes on the american public day in and day out. let me share some additional numbers with you. every year in america, more than 100,000 people are shocked. 37,537 people died, including 11,583 people who are murdered. every year 18,000 children and teenagers are shocked. 2829 of them died, including 1888, who are murdered. every day in america, 282 people are shocked and 86 of them died, including 32 who are murdered. everyday 50 children and teenagers are shot. in eight of those children and teenagers died, including five who were murdered. if this was disease killing that many people, if this were an accident killing that many people, if this were bags of tainted spinach killing that many people, this country would immediately take swift action to stop that kind of death toll. some are seemingly paralyzed when it comes to guns and violence. i would only repeat what congresswoman mccarthy says. this time is different. and it must be. gun violence disproportionately affects urban areas. the 50 largest metro areas have asked you to cities, and these account for 15% of the population, but 39% of gun related murders and 23% of total homicides. philadelphia, like many major cities have struggled to control gun violence for years. however, despite leasing techniques, deaths due to gun violence have not radically fallen. if we use one set of statistics to illustrate this point. last year, the number of shooting victims in philadelphia was 1282. this is actually down considerably from the year before. it was the lowest number since we began tracking shooting victims in the year 2000. however, the number of homicides was actually slightly up last year. 331. seven more than the previous year. how are these two statistics possible? the answer is that the homicide victims have more bullets killing him. to put it another way, there are more rounds being fired and more intentional head shots. so despite better policing, someone in philadelphia may be more likely to die even though there are more shooting victims. an 11% increase in philadelphia and head shots. we had a 30% increase in the number of bullets found at scenes measuring more than 20 rounds at a location. let me know that pennsylvania does not have stringent gun restrictions. when the city of philadelphia adopted stricter gun laws a few years ago, the state supreme court struck some of those laws down. that is why we need the federal legislation. comprehensive, commonsense, federal legislation for all of us to be safe. [applause] we cannot reduce gun violence by ourselves. we have done everything we can, but we are still losing the battle thanks to the proliferation of guns in our nation. the philadelphia story is not unique. mayors everywhere struggle using scarcity resources to fight it. resources that we should be using to educate our children and create jobs for our residents and revitalize our cities. in an open letter to the president and the congress, just three days after the newtown massacre, we urge immediate action. over 200 mayors to sign on to that letter. we call upon the president to exercise his powers through executive orders and the congress to introduce and pass legislation to make reasonable changes in our gun laws and regulations. specifically we call upon congress to enact legislation to ban assault weapons and other high-capacity magazines that are now being prepared by senator dianne feinstein and many others. number two is we need to strengthen the national background check system and eliminate loopholes. number three is strengthened the penalties for purchases of guns. today president obama and vice president biden believe that the administration's plan to reduce gun violence through legislation and executive action will be good. i was honored to be at the white house for that release and i can tell you that the administration is listening closely to the recommendations that the mayors have offered. the nation's mayors urge the congress to give that purport full consideration and to move swiftly forward on the legislative action that requires. we know that preventing gun violence, whether it is mass shootings in a school, or murder on a street corner, it will take much more than just strengthening our gun laws. we need to reverse the culture of violence in our nation. so the violent acts are not the first response of settling a difference of were compensating for a wrong. we need to strengthen and fund our mental health system adequately so that we can identify troubled individuals earlier to get him the help that they need. lastly, in addition to the first, i personally support the creation of the coalition against american violence and crime which would examine violent crime in the court recommendations on what our government can do on a local and state and national level to reduce domestic terrorism and violence crimes, such as those that we witnessed in newtown, aurora, colorado, tucson, arizona, and others. as mayor of philadelphia, i also announce something that i referred to as the sandy hook principles. these principles are a call to action for corporations to keep basic core values of american citizens in promoting the health and safety and well-being of our community. the objective of these principles is the influence of the behavior of gun manufacturers and establishing a baseline standard for responsible conduct of their businesses. i have shared these principles with many other mayors from around the country and we expect we will be reviewing and discussing them in the days ahead. let me be very clear, however. strengthening our gun laws does not have to wait for any of these other actions to occur. the time for action is now. the nation's mayors pledge to work with a safer america and build a safer america for all of our citizens and children. lastly, let me say this as a father. i find it reprehensible and disgusting and outside the balance of human dignity that the nra could place an advertisement on television attacking president obama's daughters. [applause] even in this at times, outrageous business of politics in which we've are all engaged. we must have the sense to not attack the families and children of those of us engaged in public service. the nra has struck an incredibly new low in public discourse, and that advertisement should be in removed immediately. [applause] that advertisement has no place in the legitimate dialogue must that must take place in order to make this country safer for all of us, especially our children. thank you, madam leader. [applause] >> thank you, sir. [applause] >> thank you, mayor, for your powerful testimony. ms. nottingham, you have been so supportive. we continue the legacy of public service and we are happy that you are here today to share your thoughts with us and we welcome you. >> thank you for having me. it is fitting that we are holding this meeting near the zimmerman room. gabe was my son. he worked with your colleague, congresswoman gabrielle giffords. a man armed with high-capacity magazines and a semi automatic weapons, they purchased at a big-box store, shop the congresswoman and then turn on the people that came to see her. he murdered six people. including my son read he injured 13 people, including congressman ron barber and did so with 31 bullets before trying to reload his magazine. only then did citizen heroes have the opportunity to tackle him to the ground and disarm him. on that sunny day outside a suburban grocery store, those people, including a 9-year-old girl him ima not much older than children killed in newtown, were exercising their rights. the rights of freedom of assembly. the right to freedom of speech. they were trying to be good citizens and participate in a democratic process. i am sad beyond words at the death and injury of tucson and aurora, newtown, and to many other places. but i am also angry that we -- you and i -- we have made it so easy for these things to happen. we have allowed ourselves to over emphasize gun laws to the detriment of others. including the most important, the right to be alive. we have allowed our families to lose the feeling of safety at school and their place of worship, at the movies, and gabe, who had a passion for social justice, would be furious. please, do not be swayed by the line that the only way to combat a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. in fact, there was a good guy with a gun at that tucson, arizona, shooting. he almost mistakenly shot the citizen hero that attacked the shooter. i am here to encourage you to tackle the serious public health issue with resolve. resolve it with facts and the complexity of approach that requires. i fully understand that we cannot stop every shooting. but if we can take action and save some of our loved ones, shouldn't we do everything we can? we have known some of the solutions for decades but have failed to act. we need better access to and from a governmental health system. we need universal background checks and to take assault weapons and high-capacity magazines off of our streets. we need to allow the cdc to fully research gun violence. i am also here because i think it helps to bolster your resolve. when you can think about the victims as real people and not just statistics. gabe was a guy like many of your staffers. young and idealistic, he would work long hours and work on affordable takeout food and adrenaline. he had plans, picking a wedding location, helping his mom -- that's me, hook up a television. figuring out a birthday present for his fianc√Če. instead, he was shot in the head as he ran to help. a man that killed many people very quickly. have you ever had that nightmare where you knew where you were supposed to be but couldn't get their? that was my january 8. as i searched hospitals defy my son who had not answered his cell phone and who i thought might be wounded. it took hours to find out that he had died before he hit the ground. that his bodies still lay on the sidewalk where he fell. when you are disheartened by the number of steps it had to be taken, by the fears of gun advocates, by politics, please dig deep. think for a moment about your young staffers. think about your children and grandchildren. imagine that that cell phone in your pocket is vibrating. and the message says, murdered by a stranger with an assault weapon. imagine that. then sure of your resolve and keep working. keep working to protect your staffers and children and nation. we need you to not give up. thank you. [applause] >> well said. [applause] [applause] .. i've been a police officer for 36 years and she for 12. having shared the canadian farmer chaired the national to prevent gun violence. for many years, we have word to try and stop the madness of tragedies we are seeing. these needless tragedies occur every day with real people, police officers included in the lives and minds due to the inadequacy of argon lines. one person is on the front lines have begun to epidemic. in 2011, the first time in 14 years, more in line for us and in the line of duty by god dan any other means. approximately two dozen children under the age of the team are killed every year by guns, a very sad that it's taken mass murders, including those of the 20 small children in connecticut to get our attention. grandparents has been inaccurately depict it as pro-gun or anti-gannon. this framework has stifled an honest and rational discussion about what should be done to prevent gun violence. law-enforcement is not anti-god. we on guns, work with guns, carry guns, many pursue hunting, sporting conservation issues. we know that guns in danger turbo consequences. we've seen devastation caused by weapons of excessive fighter power. federal i.d. in certain categories of people too dangerous to possess firearms. among them, silent from the fugitives minors and those who have been committed to a mental institution were adjudicated as mentally ill. the pretty hot in that did in 1994 established a national background check system. but those checks, as you know, are only required when someone is make in a purchase from a federally licensed firearms dealer. a way around those for a person to purchase at a gun show, an ad or three private party and we know, we've heard an estimated 40% of firearms are required through private transactions, meaning a prohibited person can and as i obtain a weapon without a background check. after the tragedy in newton, the gun lobby founded in part by the gunmakers proclaim that the solution to a bad guy with a kind of sacred air with a gun, unquote. but the real solution is to prevent the bad guy from getting a gun in the first place is to do a background check. that is something the good guy does. from 1994, when the brady law took effect, to 2009, effectively, that's the last public data leaking gas. nearly 2 million prohibited purchases were blocked. can you imagine? can you imagine it background checks are required universally? that's a lot of that nice prevented from getting guns, good guys stepping back days. it's time to stop dangerous people from getting guns from any source. you can peer congress must pass legislation requiring background checks for all purchases. we must always improve the national criminal background check system, because states are behind in reporting and have not submitted records of those who have disqualifying mental health issues. this must be fixed. it is critical to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and ammunition magazine at the capacity of more than 10 rounds. assault weapons are not legitimate sporting guns are they designed for citizens to use in defending their homes. they were created to spray bullets in rapid fire on a battlefield, not on our streets. this kind of firepower and communities is simply irresponsible and facilitates mass murder. banning high-capacity magazines to reduce the number of bullets a shooter can use before they must reload. from tucson, arizona to maryland, perpetrators have been taken now will change not magazines trying to reload. semi automatic assault weapons 38 states and should be treated the same way we treat machine guns. they should be registered in the person should go through background checks. the proposal for volunteers and our scores is a distraction and it's very dangerous. it opens a host of security issues. it is very typical for highly trained police officer to engage in active shooter. it takes a great deal of training and a great deal of training, something that our teachers and principals and superintendents don't have the time and probably aren't inclined to do. police and schools, also known as scored resource officers halt make school savers by building relationships and trust and it's those relationships that stop the bad guy before an event happens. were not coming in after the fact. we have relationships to develop and glean information so they know when someone is in trouble and struggling and we know when they're threatening to do something because time and time again we have the evidence of it and is typically the school resource officer who develops the relationship and get some information and steps that event. it happens every day because it does not make the news. i also want to stress the atf needs a director in place as soon as possible. [applause] and i spent six years the post has been vacant and you know and i know he seriously needs to be signed on the need to be repealed and removed. hot mark all across the country, one person in the public are calling upon congress to strength in the nation's laws. i daresay we are pleading. i has to shoot he'd are caught and enact the sensible measures that will present further bloodshed. thank you. hot mark >> thank you all very much for what has been the most extraordinary, powerful testimony and prescriptions for us to take back and directives. and thank you for giving us to strengthened their resolve to help them make these changes with you. we can't do it without you and i think you know that we hope that you know we are with you in trying to make these changes. we are now going to move to questions. i'll just say i'm going to introduce my colleague, mike thompson to introduce a member who was son of a space chairs on the prevention of violence committee. we're going to have a one minute question and that's going to be true advocate to dealing with mm or spirit mr. thompson of california. >> thank you, not in chair. it gives a great pleasure to introduce the vice-chairman of test scores to prevent gun violence, someone on the judiciary committee, expert in juvenile justice and next week will be holding a hearing with grace napolitano, our colleague from california on juvenile justice and mental health issues, gentlemen are virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to point out the party had recommendations that the president and vice president and so we know we're going to have a serious response to the tragedy in newton. in addition to recommendations we are at the heart on gun safety and violence specifically, we have to make recommendations to address violence generally and that must be done with it comprehends approach. dr. dewey cornell, forensics psychologist at the university of virginia reminds us that if your schools prevention plan begins from the shooter is at the door, it's too late. and so, it is one initiative which seeks to replace what the fun cause the credo to prison pipeline to cradle to college and career pipeline, the attorney general blue-ribbon commission report on how to reduce problems associated children exposed to violence is published only a few months ago. he uses focuses on prevention and early intervention and uses the phrase evidence based on virtually every page. it urges us to follow evidence and research underwear slogans and look at approaches that are not affect his. so if we do what we know what we need to do and agree that our recommendation will reform to sound research, we can have confidence better recommendations to make a difference in children across the nation will be protected. we have people from virginia that affect to recognize, laurie and the others who want to stand out. those at the virginia tech tragedy, too. hot mark >> banks. but we are now going to do is first of all, this has really been an outpouring of support for this effort. we've had over 60 members of the house of representatives here and we are not in session. there are no foes, some members have stayed because of their view of the importance of this issue and wanted to listen to your views. this is however going to handle the questions because there's so many. what we will continue to do as they have in the past, recognize members in the order that they come into the hearing room. but we are going to ask members in batches of five to ask one question each. you have one minute, and you're used to this, to ask your question and then we'll have a panel answer those. honestly, what i would like to do is do this in a 10 minute block of time so we can get around to as many questions as we can. the first grouping of questions [inaudible] power to join you in diluting the panel today with a call to action and you certainly have heralded that call. i know the mayor has to get back to work and philadelphia. mr. mayor, if you have to slip out, we understand and i want to thank you now. [applause] the following fed members who kick it off. congressman eddie bernice johnson of texas, cumbersome and -- she's gone? representative frankel from florida, representative velazquez, representative going to be cheaper boric in. >> thank you very much, madam chairwoman. my question is a broad one and probably directed to the mayor and chief of police. without the budgetary restraints that we suffered throughout this country, do you think you can have an effect this program without funding? >> note. >> we are going to take all five questions at one time. [laughter] >> mr. holtz. >> thank you are the stories. they certainly make one cry. they should make one determined and committed. why has america is so different in the statistics you gave us? you know, it is not that we have so much more mental illness are less mental health care and other countries are so many fewer armed police were different for student. it's not only american youths who play violent videogames. it is not that we have so little information about bad guys and yet we have so many work on deaths. what are the major distractions in these arguments that we have to guard ourselves against? clearly over the decades, we have been distracted from actually confronting the problem >> thank you very much, madam chair and thank you for your moving testimony. my home state of oregon is one of the few states that requires universal background checks for firearm sales. however, the recent shootings at the town center shopping mall, the shooter killed to be for turning the gun on himself had stolen his assault rifle and we know that newton shooter. what other steps can we take? how else can we address the situation that are not addressed by universal background checks? thank you. >> mr. moran. >> columbine high school had an entire police force at virginia chadwick. but what i would like to principally focused on an old directives to mayor said for being from virginia. philadelphia, d.c. and other major cities have the toughest guy mosque, but look at all the gun crime. virginia is one of the major problems because what happens even though governor wilde passed a law limiting handguns to an amount, date and reverse the virginia legislature and so now people will go and another thick and show her or whatever, often time stop to buy cases of guns, transport them up 95 and then find a street corner, open up the trunk and saw the guns. i'd like to mayor to address the phenomenon and white demands federal legislation. thank you. >> mr. kildee, one minute. unless the mayor to answer questions first because he has to leave. >> panel comic thank you for your present during testimony. i represent flint michigan, where over the last two years on the one in every 540 residents have been slain an amazing statistic. i talked to her prosecutor today. his concern is the guns he sees on the street are held at teenagers. not a single one of them acquired legally. my question then i suppose, chief knight, i would ask you to comment about federal support, local police chiefs, places like flint and saginaw that have precious few local resources available, what federal support would be most helpful in dealing with this problem? thank you, madam chair. i'll try to be really quick. leader pelosi and the two chairs , thank you for your accommodation with regard to my schedule and the opportunity. congresswoman johnson, u.s.a. question with regard to can we really -- we do what we do with what we have. but let me say this is a part my testimony, to talk about dealing with these issues at the federal level. in the aftermath of 9/11, the united states of america said we'll do whatever it takes to make sure we are safe. but i wanted someone to say what the rhetoric takes walking. i want my children to go to school. i want the scale comparable response to international terrorism to the domestic terrorism i see another mayors across the country experience on a regular basis. that's funding, personnel, equipment, support, technology, focus on a regular basis that domestic terrorism is as important as international terrorists. you must have to take all your clothes off to get on an airplane or one guy had a bomb in his shoe and now all of us years later are still taking their shoes off. that's fine. i want to be safe on an airplane. so we can't do what we need to do without serious focus federal support and that's what the 9/11 commission told us what we needed to be doing to be safe in the air. we also need that team responds to be safe on the ground. but one answer. congressman holtz, to your question, i think one of the reasons -- i do not believe that americans are not that much work for a defense that had nothing philadelphians are more murderous than many other folks. but when you have almost as many guns as you have people in this country invariably come and they end up in the hands of folks who should not have been. we try to pass in philadelphia and did get this will buy. the simple idea you have to report your weapon lost or stolen, if you had to make a claim to your insurance company, you have to report it stolen. the nra sued him a 100 day to decimate on the proudest moments of my entire political career. [applause] so it is a distraction in the distraction the nra and money and intimidating tag takes. we have to be prepared to fight back in similar ways, not what i talked about earlier. they have guided and done their best to underfund through congress the ats not confirm a director, take away ability to keep that information for law enforcement or process. if you're going to solve a problem, you need to know which you're going to solve solve any data and information. they've taken every possible step to block the agency or the cdc or anyone else. we can put a person on the moon, but i can assure your going to be a safe walking around the corner. we need data and information. gun locks and lockers. congresswoman bonhomie cheap. in connecticut, the person took his mother sweatbands. one of the proposals of what i released yesterday in philadelphia, standing up decibels. i don't want to give anyone free advertising. you walk into a video store or electronic story, buy a dvd player in the immediate offer you the two year warranty. when you walk into a kind store up to the background check, sharon should go through, they should offer you a gun lock for ask, do you have begun locker in your house or business with this gun is going to be stored? that should be part of the sale that's the only person who should get access to that within. we know technology access that you can in fact make ends in such a way that only the legitimate owner and operator can operate that left him. in my city and many other cities across the united states of america, you can rent guns and stash houses across city. you walk in a show you an array. pitcher money down, bring it back in a week, to whatever you do and bring it back. mostly bring it back because they know who you are. so guns circulate. they are already there. at least in our city and chicago in illinois may have very, very tough laws. we don't in pennsylvania. we have some of the weakest laws in the united states of america united states of america appears some places for you have tough laws, they may be crazy, but they're not totally. they buy whatever weapons in a week or last date and bring them back and, which is why we need federal legislation covering the united states of america. that's what we need. and the people involved in that particular business and in many instances could be a spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever the case may be. they go have a friend do it. that person is engaged in criminal to be as far as i'm concerned. they should have the hammer comes down to solemnize the unit and the defendant is for people who walk around with unlicensed weapons. look to new york and commend governor cuomo for what he did yesterday. in new york city, a famous athlete if you use to go walk around with assault weapons shot himself in the leg and did two years in prison. this is serious business. we have too many young people, too many teens are too great access to these weapons and no one seems to care whether or not they have them or not. as their legal guns that should not be on our streets and to step up line first activity and those illegal guns off the streets of america. all of this conversation, and i had on last night was someone who clearly needs a serious background check or so, this notion that somehow after 236 years created in the city of philadelphia that somehow the government is going to be something that causes everyone to be armed, that were marching down the street, coming after guns as a whole lot of nonsense and people not dealing in the reality of what i am the chief and many others face on a daily basis. we have real jobs, real challenges and responsibilities try to make our folks safe. many do cut out the nonsense and have serious conversation about these issues than i thank you. >> thank you very much, mayor. >> thank you, mr. mayor, very much. [applause] our next group of five then we ask people hear the one that coaches and committee assignments may be based on adherence to god is the first is ms. barbara lee from california. then, ms. lujan krishan, ms. susan davis, ms. davis scott. and let me just say to the witnesses, when you respond, if you, pbytes, that further questions, please feel free to do so. >> first, let me thank the panel for your extraordinary testimony. also, i harpold notices go to the family there loved ones in the entire newton community. my constitommunity. my constituents in my district, especially from oakland, california 70,000 prayers also to you. in many ways, part of the community, which i represent continues to be a war zone. 15 constituents were shot just last week. could you please give us an idea of what cities and police officers and mayors confront in terms of daily gun violence? >> maxes ms. lujan krishan. >> i do want to add my appreciation for the tai chi name courageous remarks today. i can tell you that i have renewed resolve because of your courage and dedication and compassion and recognized that this is the day to commit from this day forward that we need comprehensive reform so that we are doing something meaningful about the gun violence in this country and in fact they come from the district of new mexico, where he had significant gun violence and tragedy of the questions i would've asked had a nasty day. so i have a new question, which is in the aftermath of this horrific tragedy and i want to make sure i recognize there's been others. what can we do in congress today to help the healing and make sure we have continued support for those families in your community, dr. robinson. >> thank you. mr. hank johnson. >> thank you. my condolences to dr. robinson and nottingham and representatives from the virginia shooting. my sincere condolences. would've been a a culture of violence. the question is, how do we change from a culture of violence into a culture of education and the culture of the culture peacefulness clicks it takes money. we here in congress have that ability, preventing mass shootings by way of banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, certainly something we should do. we need to get at the issue of violence that affects us with respect to handguns, used primarily and intercity areas to kill people. i'm not advocating for a ban on handguns. don't get me wrong. but we need to address the issue of violence in our culture than i would like to know what kinds of resources are available to help students and to help people in the community, adults who have emotional or mental disorders and whether or not we need to put more resources into that area. >> thank you, hank. susan davis. >> thank you very much for being here and you're making testimony. i want to follow up on the mental health question is because i don't know if you could identify and perhaps chief knight, immediate steps to decent schools can take to identify potentially dangerous individuals. we know that many, many people who would benefit from health treatment are cursory because there's no other place for them to go and on the other hand, california has had a procedure for involuntary commitment and i wonder whether you think that's an important thing to look at as we look at options that communities that have. >> thank you. david scott. >> yes, thank you. dr. robinson, i'd like to direct this question to you. the national rifle association has set the best way in response to that have been at your school in newton is to arm the teachers and put armed personnel in each of the schools. at that today she responds. how would you respond to the nra on not quite and secondly, why you feel strongly that a large part of the answer to this is to deal with these weapons of mass destruction as we call them, with high-capacity weapons. >> thank you, david for your patience. we ask her panels to remember, if you guys to comment on some pain. >> i was just going to say -- [inaudible] >> thank you. representative gratian, thank you for the question. it's a sensitive question. we realize now in the midst of this and looking back their faces dealing with this trauma. it had named this, i call this the start of the recovery. it's painful. mental health is a big piece. what i come to realize is a new pastoral sense of safety that she start to look for things that are concrete and get the visible signs of safety. parents are looking to see police surrounded the street, want to make sure the car out there and police in the building. they are demanding their big s. harrison elementary schools, which we didn't have. people seem to need that. some of our teachers are saying, you know, any escape ladders in the road and the doers changing the locks. they are creating a list of things that they need to feel safe because they've lost their personal sense of safety. so congress could take a real critical look at those unique situations that happened in these dramatic events in arizona, wherever. people go through these processes and their different places and there's a lot of grieving the mental health support is necessary and we do a great job of bringing in germanic experts, counseling and so forth and then they go away. i think that people need support for a long time and i don't think when these people go away they start talking about a transition plan and they say no, stop. we are not there. so we need more long-term kinds of support by nature mattock incident occurs and that's mental health and that's also at this visible signs of security so we can keep going. representative scott, your question on the nra teachers. i come from the army family. that has been as navy pilot. we don't keep guns. you know, have great respect for guns. my dad used to take down his ranch in new mexico in teach me how to shoot. i have great respect for them. but if you remember what she chiefs a little while ago, he said it takes a great deal of training for police officer to shoot a weapon in action. teachers are teachers and maybe think about elementary teachers, elementary teachers just love kids. they're not going to go sit on the floor on iraq and we took the kids at the gun at their head. there was some very insensitive individual who will go unnamed but immediately after this, na did not watch tv after this, made some claim that if done huckster on had a weapon in her death, she could've taken care of it. number one, she wasn't at her desk a good principle is. that means she would have to carry that she whipped around. but what about the athletic individual who shot himself in the foot. how many kids could it get entered with an experienced elementary teachers working with guns. it's not even logical. i people do tell me they need to see armed policeman and they were people who are trained. they went to see them in the schools and i think that is that lots of security and i think that's important. at least temporarily repealed to accommodate that. the third part of your question had to do with high-capacity. he shot every one of these little 6-year-old three to 11 times. that wasn't necessary. and heidi had a single shot or a god and all that ammunition, maybe dawn and the people coming out could have stopped him. you know, they were determined. they didn't have a chance at a semi automatic weapon and little 6-year-old bodies have chance. so that's the depth of my feelings. did i miss anyone? >> ms. nottingham coming to shoot a comment? demo go to the chief. >> i would just like to echo the idea that people need support after mass shootings after any major tragedy. for a long time, there is not a quick recovery and that should be understood and recognized. secondly, that is just one aspect of the idea of moving to a culture of education rather than a culture of violence. one of the things we've been working on in tucson through this ability respect and understanding its anti-bullying programs in the schools because we relearn about violent, model violence, children are very young. and if we are going to address this to an educational aspect, then we should look at additional support for anti-bullying activities in our schools. >> from my worldview, some of these overlap, so i'm not necessarily going to be surgical, but i will answer a lot of these questions. firstly, she asked about funding. yes, please, we do. here are the number of ways to reduce it. specifically, school resource officers. in my city, a city of 25,000, the lion share of the public schools with our district are in my city and at private schools, three. because of funding and what it is in today's world and the economy and education, we know how they are strapped. i have for as far at one time. i know how broad and that is not a desired situation by the school or by my department. yesterday finding peace. to the mental health peace, they are in there,, know the case, they even know they don't look right a bad day and the friendships and they talked to someone else will say can't have you seen his facebook page? for i am being taken down and all the things that lead us to mental health issues. regarding mental health issues, today the officer on the street gets caught having an episode of some nature. maybe a family member, coworker or maybe there aren't about having some. the officer comes, evaluate and determine something is going on. this person needs to be seen. if cremated no crime a lot of the time, so they in minnesota tonight and this is similar throughout our country, execute the 72 hour hold. a lot of people think it kind of situation is resold for 72 hours southeast. this individual will be receiving some sort of care and i assays to determine the next day. that's not true. the 72 hour hold all that gives the authority to say whether you want to or not, you are going to have to come at me for this paramedic crew and you're going to this hospital. upon arrival, often because their history is know, a host of genetic reasons, er physician releases and then. so yes, that's a problem. and you're right. my peers will tell you, jails have become de facto institutions because a lot of people come to some sort of crime have been very fair outcome is something well. so now they are in jail. do we think they're getting treated their? i hope that goes to your question. >> chief, can i interrupt for one second? i know dr. robinson is going to catch an airplane they want to see thank you to you. our hearts, thoughts, prayers are with you in the new community and we will do what we need to do. thank you, dr. robinson. [applause] >> sorry, chief. >> now, i'm sorry. such as oppression of has some unlikely on sale at the end, another gets their hands on it, family member or whatever the situation. yes, we know that happens. but there should be a foster stolen weapons, there should be legislation i think there requires the safe storage and separation of weapons and ammunition so they're not available to anyone who might come upon them. so you know in a footnote, it wasn't that long ago smith & wesson was giving gun locks out with their weapons and they were vilified, vilified by the industry. and guess what they start doing? a business decision. giving gun locks, came to be a prudent business decision to stop it. now, where's the sanity and not? it does make face. course it doesn't. you know, in regard to the daily violence that we see, unfortunately my city, very few murders. we have a lot of accidents. in fact, in the past 12 months, we've had four people who've run through the permitting shoot themselves. two of our demonstrating the weapon was unloaded. and so we are dealing with gun violence all the time. again, which doesn't make the news, is my officers are taking guns off the people of the time because nothing happened, thank god, that's not a newsworthy item. my peers will tell you across the country i started in 1976. at that time and the cards needed is a shotgun. typically a 12 gauge. that was so wet paint to go to if it really got heavy. well, over some we went from a shotgun because it was still under adequate for the type the officers facing on the streets and we moved to a nine-millimeter rifle because that would double in the field a bit. for your -- officers said they are 15th in their office. do you think of what to do this because i want to? to think i have a lot of money? i am doing it because i am forced to provide my officers the tools they need to keep you, my family, my community and themselves safe. it is not simply because it is a new weapon we need to acquire. so i hope that goes to your question. i hope i touched on those questions. >> thank you. this is the last tranche of questions here and sheila jackson lee from texas -- [inaudible] i'm sorry, cumbersome and quite more -- he may have left. okay, ms. jackson lee and ms. maurer. one minute. >> that they acknowledge to dr. nottingham are deepest in the state for such a young man and hero. certainly to the tragedy we have witnessed in vietnam ulcer, i also want to acknowledge to people in there and have experienced gun violence in ron david uchida davis who lost their son to gun violence. [applause] i come from texas, chief and i'm going to hold this off. the headline says that type of gun world because i want everyone to know where you just said what have said you were not asking for guns. the store's name is used in armor in the headline says they are strictly controlled at the united states government. not only that, someone says someone breaks into take their guns in a saint because they are in a vault. tell me about the outgunned as a police officer and the importance of story and securing guns. you mentioned earlier, the storing of securing guns in people's homes, which i think is enormously crucial. >> thank you very much and i particularly want to thank dr. nottingham, as a mother and grandmother, i can't imagine sitting next to my friend, ron harper, the pain you feel. i don't have any questions. i just want to ask for yourself and all those listening today. we all have been listening to the recent polls. 80% of the american people support closing the loophole. 70% with universal background checks. 6% with high-capacity magazines, et cetera, et cetera. we and i just hope we can work together to use the american people to get legislation passed through both the senate and the house. be your past tough legislation just this week. we can do it with your help and i thank you for appearing here today. thank you. >> news moore? >> thank you so much. i joined so many others in ottavio who have turned your pain into some actionable plans for the current killings and violence. i just don't know that i can do it, so i really appreciate your appearing to help us sort through these things. i think part of what makes all this so helpless is because how do you prepare in this sleepy little town like newton, connecticut, anticipating that someone will come in and shoot 26 people. you just don't necessarily prepare for that as you might think of some big-city, where that might have been. but there are -- i'm talking about domestic violence now. we know that every single day there's going to be some woman who is going to be killed because there are restraining orders that are put out there and they won in his spouse a firearm is five times by likely to be killed or that we have federal laws prohibiting misdemeanor or felony -- folks of felonies from having a firearm, but what do you think? what do you think, cheese is maybe a grant program restricted to the states to number one, align their domestic violence laws in identifying who these people are with federal law and to give them grants so as soon as the restraining orders put down, number one, d.c. firearms from them right that day. no need to go to a psychiatrist can do nothing if you've got to restrain order. we take her firearms that day and until the judge list that order, that it be put into the ntis immediately so that she can't hide the gun. >> thank you very much. mr. barbour, one comment, question. >> i have a question with regard to mental health services and people with mental health needs. before he did come i want to correct something i've been saying for a few days that is now incorrect. i was saying that those of us who were shot on junior at each were shot in 45 seconds. they learn from the u.s. attorney that 36 bullets were discharged in 19 seconds and i think it just emphasizes all the more need to do some thing about high-capacity magazines. my question to you about mental health. with a bill that will hopefully provide training to bonds and educators. what more can we do to provide good information, practical information to those who might have come into contact with folks of mental illness get the treatment they need possibly prevent these kinds of tragedies? [inaudible] -- response. >> the question about gun storage and particularly in the home venue. this is a personal opinion, but tested in the field if you will. our country has a solid hunting and sporting tradition, but it was waning. but a lot of people who didn't grow up in such a tradition and they don't hunt and what outcomes the lack of respect for it with an of all. secondly, this idea and we see it all the time of guns unsecured, loaded, and a home, under a pillow, and the nightstand, on top of the refrigerator or wherever it is anyone can come along, especially a child to pick up. frankly we need legislation that makes it a crime. we can say after the fact is banned by social services and those avenues, unsafe environment, but doesn't get the particular issue. i don't think it is. an regard to domestic violence, absolutely. you're so we do at that. first of all, forgive me for stating the obvious, but next is a wonderful thing. i'm sorry, and cic. they're both wonderful things. anything with a serial number person there, like a toaster. it's not necessarily go to database to get at what they want to get off. i think those people should go into the next system right away and i think we need is funding for crisis teams. because when guns and often is the case are not involved, but some money to help in an officer roles that the greek in the morning and very limited in the resources them. if there is funding for properly trained crisis intervention people, their rico. now we got something. out of some mental-health er in the officer doesn't have to be creative or drive away, god forbid, because there's nothing they can do. and i'm sorry. was there another question? >> while he's thinking, i want to add one thing and i am not an expert on mental health, but i do just want to say that in any comprehensive package, including appropriate funding for increased access to mental health services and increase mental-health services is absolutely crucial. we don't want to have solved our problems by tackling a shooter after they've run out of toilet in a high-capacity magazine. what we want to do is stop them from ever feeling the need to pick up that kind. so if we can include mental health in a comprehensive package, i think it's absolutely crucial. >> fantasy thank you and i want to ask each of you if you have some closing remarks, a startling statistic that i just found out is 67% of adults, 80% of our children with mental health issues are not being treated for this issues. i have to look over and over again because i thought the numbers are so staggering that no one would believe me and we got the citation on it as well. let me just ask you if you have any closing remarks before he turned it over to the leader. >> thank you for listening to the quarters. >> i would like to say this. thank you. i have over the years that with a lot of you and i know where your hard cider and a thank you. what a great day this was leaving the white house and having to face. thank you. i would say this, there are those who say that the gun lobby has caused great fear but your colleagues and maybe they would rather do something, but because of this fear, they'll go with the gun lobby. i would like to just suggest this. for that individual, not you folks, but for the individual struggling this fear, that's inconvenience. thus they belittle harper. fear is what went through the hearts and minds of those 20 first-graders and connecticut. that's fear, ladies and gentlemen. and the suggestion that people should be afraid, when in fact to know america is behind you on the background checks on all these other issues. how is that fair? it is just becoming educated. [applause] >> not a leader. >> thank you rematch. a thank you, cumbersome and trained to penrod d'andrea says the policy committee. i think all of our colleagues. this is a big issue of numbers that we've had for any hearing by five and i might add there is an overflow room of folks who have been listening to these proceedings. most of all, i think our witnesses for sharing their stories, their experience. you honor us with your generosity spirit and time to be with us because they know you have it demands, especially at this time for your opinions. as i mentioned earlier is a call to action, gun violence prevention and, a call to action. so i'm going to yield my time to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson because he has the responsibility to lead us into action legislatively here. once again, the chief and i., dr., thank you so much for honoring us with your presence. [applause] >> thank you, not a leader and chairs for holding today's hearing and thank you for allowing me to help construct sensible gun laws that will help to prevent gun violence. nothing said today it is earth shattering. that being said today's going to to take anybody's guns. nothing today is going to threaten any hunters or gun collectors. people came forward today and asked for background checks and i don't know how anyone could be against that. at one wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. if you have background checks, you can't do it. the whole idea of assault magazines, people coming with 30 shows in their magazines, even 15 shows in their magazine as i bergey said, i am a hunter. the federal law, the federal law restricts the number of shells i can put in my shock and when i go duck hunting. no law restricts the number of shows somebody can put in an assault magazines to go do whatever types of misdeeds they want to do. enforcing the existing laws is what they say a no-brainer. enhance school security, fixing holes the mental-health system, all important all important things in things we have to do in the leader is ready. it is a call to action and it's a call to act. this time responsible gun owners stand hand-in-hand with the passionate and compassionate congress to make sure we make our streets safe and do something we can do in the time to act is now. thank you all very, very much. [applause] >> i think it is important to note to our witnesses that the course of the hearing, as you know, scores of members who are here, the distinguished majority democratic whip has been with us the entire time, assess our distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, so we're very honored by your presence. >> if i can say, i was a master that had me questions, but i was going to answer, i have no questions. but i have unbelievable respect and admiration for your courage and insights. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ..
CSPAN
Jan 18, 2013 6:00am EST
, a discussion on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction debate. this was part of a brookings institution forum on jobs and the economy. this panel is an hour or and 20 minutes -- an hour and 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> all right. should we get started again? um, i'm either using that vision, or that clock is way off. but i'll use my watch. okay. so if everybody could come in from coffee and sit down, we'll get started on our second panel. and we're delighted to welcome a really terrific set of panelists, lew kaden, vice chair of citi, maya macguineas who is now involved in or leading the fix the debt campaign. bob mcdonald who is the ceo and president of procter & gamble, and ralph schlosstein who's the ceo of ever corp.. so really a terrific group. let me just give a little bit of context, at least while everyone's filing into the room. i'm martin baily with the economic studies program at brookings. if we cast our minds back to the 1960s, the 1960s, obviously b, was a troubled decade politically, but economically growth was pretty strong. productivity growth wa
CSPAN
Jan 17, 2013 12:00pm EST
the fiscal clever arrangement and we have the infamous debt ceiling which will come into play so we will be seeing a lot of activity the next few months about the appropriate size of the government and about the size of the deficit and a lot of back-and-forth over these issues. without going into all of the different ramifications i want to say a word about the debt ceiling which is not everybody understands what it's about. the debt ceiling which congress has to do periodically as gives the government money to pay its existing bills. it doesn't create new spending so it's like a family trying to improve its credit rating not the most effective way to improve the credit rating and was the slow solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 that of the u.s. downgraded last time brough so it's very important that congress take the necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where our government doesn't pay its bills. estimate the number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in the deal. as you mentioned is certain
CSPAN
Jan 15, 2013 9:00am EST
a consensus on this in the political process that the debt ceiling has no rational place in this. the president addressed that yesterday, but the fact is playing russian roulette with the u.s. economy and the wellbeing of our population has no place in an honest debate about how much spending should be cut, how much investment should be made to address these broader economic and social deficit ands how to resolve this and get on to other parts of the national agenda. sooner or later, i think, the congress and the president will agree. you saw approaches to this in senator mcconnell's comments in the last couple of weeks and, obviously, in the president's that the key control is in the authorization and appropriation process, and the ability to pay those bills through either revenue sources or borrowing ought to be attached to the decision to spend, not used as a point of leverage in many broader and more or important negotiations. >> thank you, lew. can i just follow up, and i don't know if this is a little bit of a tan gent, but i think i just want to ask you because of your pos
CSPAN
Jan 17, 2013 6:00am EST
gregg as they share their thoughts on entitlement reform, the e erasing of the debt ceiling -- the raising of the debt ceiling and sequestration. this is just getting underway. [applause] >> well, good morning. thank you, raymond. and thanks to all of you for making it through the snow drifts. glad you all arrived safely. one flake of snow, and washington closes down. well, we're very excited about the new year. our partnership with the chamber and this morning's program featuring senators kent conrad and judd gregg. before we start our program, i'd like to recognize our sponsors, bdo represented by david trimner. if bdo could, please, stand and be recognized. [applause] all right. the broadmoor remitted by hover -- represented by lori meacham. lori, if you could -- [applause] and ceo update whose editor-in-chief is recovering from a bad case of the flu, so she is not here. bdo is the leader in accounting and consultancy services for associations, the broadmoor is the number one resort property for associations looking for a five-star meeting experience. i've got great memories, i
CSPAN
Jan 16, 2013 5:00pm EST
it in a way that republicans threatening to use the debt ceiling relays everything and puts the perspective, i think, in the wrong place. i think it's a serious mistake for them to even think about that, and we were talking earlier about the articles this morning saying how dangerous it is to use the debt ceiling to essentially put the full faith and credit of this country in the real jeopardy so i am very concerned about the consequences from doing that or even threatening to do it immediately and, also, it really shifts the focus and instead of it being on the debt ceiling, including tax reform. >> host: okay. so tax reform doesn't happen in 2013. >> guest: it may not happen. >> host: may not happen. what's the impact of that? what's the implication? >> guest: i said all along it's important for us to look beyond the label tax reform. for example, we are urged early on tax reform to bring the rates down to 25% individual and corporate. without indicating how in the world you would do that, and some said, well, we can use the exemptions in the deductions. well, we've already be
CSPAN
Jan 15, 2013 5:00pm EST
number two, i think it is fido, as the president said so clearly yesterday, that the debt ceiling essentially must not use to say what then that essentially takes on and essentially undoes the basic full faith and credit of the united states of america. the president made so clear what would he have staked if that were to happen and i just think it's so critical that not occur. you know, i've been through these battles as i've said for many decades, but i don't remember anyone essentially saying we should go over the cliff in terms of the full faith and credit of the united states. the consequences with teeth, i think, to not take, potentially cataclysmic. and for the republicans who essentially say, let's do it, i think that would be a very, very serious mistake with foreseeable consequences. the federal reserve has said don't do it and i think the responsible position is we should not flirt with it. >> said they don't march on me with torches that they start asking you questions. something cataclysmic shouldn't be done in terms of reaching the debt ceiling, yet does science seem locked in c
CSPAN
Jan 17, 2013 8:00pm EST
between now and the time we deal with the debt ceiling, that we may very well be able to meet the goal which we set out to do, which is to have roughly a $4 trillion cut over ten years, and in the long-term deficit and put us on that path. but i didn't come here to talk about any of those important subjects today because, as important as they all are, today we have a more urgent and immediate call, and that is how to deal with the epidemic of gun violence in america. you all know the statistics very well so i'm not going to repeat them. on that score, i might add, oui an incredible debt of gratitude to many of you at the head table as well as those of you in the room. i know we don't have absolutely unanimity in this ballroom, nor do we in anyway ballroom, but we all know, everyone acknowledges, we have to do something. we have to act. i hope we're all agreed that there's a need to respond to the carnage on our streets and in our schools. i hope we all agree that mass shootings like the ones we witnessed in newton 34 days ago, cannot continue to be tolerated. that tragedy in all m
CSPAN
Jan 15, 2013 8:00pm EST
yesterday, the debt ceiling essentially must not be used as a weapon. it essentially takes on an is the basic full faith and credit of the united states of america. the president has made so clear what would be at stake if that were to happen. i just believe that it is so critical that that not occurred. you know, i have been through these battles for many decades. i don't remember anyone essentially saying we should go over the cliff. the consequences would be, i think, shamanic and potentially cataclysmic. for the republicans that say let's do it, i think i would be a mistake with foreseeable consequences. the federal reserve has said the responsible physician is we should not forget. >> the president says he's not going to talk about the debt ceiling, speaker boehner said it can be done unless we cut spending at the same time. what are the odds of avoiding going over the fiscal cliff given where both parties are. >> they are going with the american economy and the global economy. closer you get to the fiscal cliff, i think the less likely it is that the u.s. will be funded over and.
CSPAN
Jan 18, 2013 9:00am EST
avoiding further avoidable policy mistakes that is failing to agree on increasing the debt ceiling on time and prior to that preferably and reaching agreement on medium-term debt reduction. that i mentioned earlier. for the nonadvanced economies, and i'm putting together the emerging markets as well as the low income countries, clearly those countries are faring at a much better pace in terms of growth. but everywhere i've traveled in the last two months in africa, in latin america and in asia there's always been a concern about the unbalances and the lack of decisive action to address the advanced economies' crisis. so this spillover effect including in terms of confidence building are clear. and given those, this increasing interconnectedness -- particularly with certain markets -- reducing this uncertainty is going to be key to the health of the global economy and to a lot of those regions that are still very dynamic to continue to grow at a pace that is sustainable and necessary for the well being of their population. this is excessively too general because when you go down the li
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13